Organizational Learning (OL)
Chris
Argyris and
Donald Sch�n's
Organizational Learning
Chris
Argyris and
Donald Sch�n
(1978) defined organizational learning as: "the detection and correction of
error". Fiol and Lyles later define learning as "the process of improving
actions through better knowledge and understanding" (1985). Dodgson describes
organizational learning as "the way firms build, supplement, and organize
knowledge and routines around their activities and within their cultures and
adapt and develop organizational efficiency by improving the use of the broad
skills of their workforces" (1993). Huber states that learning occurs in an
organization "if through its processing of information, the range of its
[organization's] potential behaviors is changed" (1991).
A "learning organization" is a firm that purposefully constructs structures and
strategies so as to enhance and maximize Organizational Learning (Dodgson,
1993). The concept of a learning organization has become popular since
organizations want to be more adaptable to change. Learning is a dynamic concept
and it emphasizes the continually changing nature of organizations. The focus is
gradually shifting from individual learning to organizational learning. Just as
learning is essential for the growth of individuals, it is equally important for
organizations. Since individuals form the bulk of the organization, they must
establish the necessary forms and processes to enable organizational learning in
order to facilitate change.
Organizational learning is more than the sum of the parts of individual learning
(Dodgson, 1993; Fiol & Lyles, 1985). An organization does not lose out on its
learning abilities when members leave the organization. Organizational learning
contributes to organizational memory. Thus, learning systems not only influence
immediate members but also future members due to the accumulation of histories,
experiences, norms, and stories. Creating a learning organization is only half
the solution to a challenging problem (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994). Equally
important is the creation of an unlearning organization which essentially means
that the organization must forget some of its past. Thus, learning occurs amidst
such conflicting factors (Dodgson, 1993).
Types of organizational
learning
Argyris and Sch�n describe
three types of organizational learning:
Single-loop learning
This occurs when errors are
detected and corrected and firms carry on with their present policies and goals.
According to Dodgson (1993), Single-loop learning can be equated to activities
that add to the knowledge-base or firm-specific competences or routines without
altering the fundamental nature of the organization's activities. Single-loop
learning has also been referred to as lower-level learning by Fiol and Lyles
(1985), adaptive learning or coping by Senge (1990), and non-strategic learning
by Mason (1993).
Double-loop learning
This occurs when, in addition
to detection and correction of errors, the organization is involved in the
questioning and modification of existing norms, procedures, policies, and
objectives. Double-loop learning involves changing the organization's
knowledge-base or firm-specific competences or routines (Dodgson, 1993).
Double-loop learning is also called higher-level learning by Fiol and Lyles
(1985), generative learning (or learning to expand an organization's
capabilities) by Senge (1990), and strategic learning by Mason (1993). Strategic
learning is defined as "the process by which an organization makes sense of its
environment in ways that broaden the range of objectives it can pursue or the
range of resources and actions available to it for processing these objectives."
(Mason, 1993: 843)
Deutero-learning
This occurs when organizations
learn how to carry out single-loop and double- loop learning. The first two
forms of learning will not occur if the organizations are not aware that
learning must occur. Awareness of ignorance motivates learning (Nevis et al.,
1995). This means identifying the learning orientations or styles, and the
processes and structures (facilitating factors) required to promote learning.
Nevis et al., (1995) identify seven different learning styles and ten different
facilitating factors that influence learning. For example, one of the
facilitating factors is identifying the performance gap between targeted
outcomes and actual performance. This awareness makes the organization recognize
that learning needs to occur and that the appropriate environment and processes
need to be created. This also means recognizing the fact that lengthy periods of
positive feedback or good communication can block learning (Argyris, 1994).
Double-loop and Deutero Learning are concerned with the why and how to change
the organization while single-loop learning is concerned with accepting change
without questioning underlying assumptions and core beliefs. Dodgson states that
the type of organizational learning also depends on where in the OL occurs.
Thus, learning can occur in different functions of the organization such as
research, development, design, engineering, manufacturing, marketing,
administration, and sales.
Organizational Learning of
Chris Argyris and Donald Schon
Psychologist
Chris
Argyris and philosopher
Donald Sch�n's
intervention research focused on exploring the ways organisations can increase
their capacity for double-loop learning. They argued that double-loop learning
is necessary if organisations and its members are to manage problems effectively
that originate in rapidly changing and uncertain contexts.
Argyris and Sch�n distinguished three levels of learning in organisations.
1. SINGLE-LOOP learning
"Adaptive learning" focuses on
incremental change. This type of learning solves problems but ignores the
question of why the problem arose in the first place.
2. DOUBLE-LOOP learning
Generative learning focuses on
transformational change that changes the status quo. Double loop learning uses
feedback from past actions to question assumptions underlying current views.
When considering feedback, managers and professionals need to ask not only the
reasons for their current actions, but what to do next and even more
importantly, why alternative actions are not to be implemented.
3. DEUTERO-learning
Learning how to learn better by
seeking to improve both single- and double-loop learning.
People's tacit mental maps provide guidance on acting in situations: planning,
implementing and reviewing their actions. Learning is based on the detection and
correction of errors given a current set of norms, the applied action strategy
and the realised outcome.
Argyris and Sch�n regarded individuals as the key to organisational learning.
People constructing and sharing mental maps make the development of
organisational memory and learning possible.
The theory-in-action concept of the two researchers substantiated that a gap
exists between what individuals say they want to do (espoused theory) and what
they actually do (theory in use). People always behave consistently with their
mental models (theory-in-use) even though they often do not act in accordance
with what they say (espoused theory). This concept is useful in understanding
organisational behaviour and change processes.
Top management issuing orders, memos and directives alone is insufficient to
change employees' behaviour. Single-loop learning often leads to organisational
malaise resulting in symptoms such as defensiveness, cynicism, hopelessness,
evasion, distancing, blaming, and rivalry.
In order to effectively come to grips with new situations, the espoused theories
need to be aligned with the theories in use. Double-loop learning techniques
help the organisation members learn together and the organisation change.
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Organizational learning is
increasingly becoming popular among organizations which are interested in
increasing competitive advantage, innovativeness, and effectiveness. Argyris and
Schon, two of the early researchers in this field, defined organizational
learning* as "the detection and correction of error" (1978: 2). Fiol and Lyles
define learning as "the process of improving actions through better knowledge
and understanding" (1985: 803). Dodgson describes organizational learning as
"the way firms build, supplement, and organize knowledge and routines around
their activities and within their cultures and adapt and develop organizational
efficiency by improving the use of the broad skills of their workforces" (1993:
377). Huber states that learning occurs in an organization "if through its
processing of information, the range of its [organization's] potential behaviors
is changed" (1991: 89).
A "learning organization" is a firm that purposefully constructs structures and
strategies so as to enhance and maximize organizational learning (Dodgson,
1993). The concept of a learning organization is increasingly becoming popular
since organizations want to be more adaptable to change. Learning is a dynamic
concept and it emphasizes the continually changing nature of organizations. The
focus is gradually shifting from individual learning to organizational learning.
Just as learning is essential for the growth of individuals, it is equally
important for organizations. Since individuals form the bulk of the
organization, they must establish the necessary forms and processes to enable
organizational learning in order to facilitate change. Organizational learning
is more than the sum of the parts of individual learning (Dodgson, 1993; Fiol &
Lyles, 1985). An organization does not lose out on its learning abilities when
members leave the organization. Organizational learning contributes to
organizational memory. Thus, learning systems not only influence immediate
members but also future members due to the accumulation of histories,
experiences, norms, and stories. Creating a learning organization is only half
the solution to a challenging problem (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994). Equally
important is the creation of an unlearning organization which essentially means
that the organization must forget some of its past. Thus, learning occurs amidst
such conflicting factors (Dodgson, 1993).
The purpose of this paper is to identify if technology (especially, information
systems) can help achieve effective organizationallearning thereby improving
organizational performance. Survey of literature both in the fields of
organization theory and information systems revealed that very little research
exists in the area of information systems and organizational learning. This
paper is an attempt to identify aspects of organizational learning that can
benefit from the use of information systems. This paper will not explore, in
detail, all the determinants, outcomes, and measures related to organizational
learning. The paper will briefly discuss the goals of organizational learning,
the various types of learning, the processes involved in learning, the influence
of some contextual factors such as structure, environment, and technology on
learning, and the role of information systems in organizational learning.
GOALS OF ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING
Learning is a conscious attempt
on the part of organizations to retain and improve competitiveness,
productivity, and innovativeness in uncertain technological and market
circumstances. The greater the uncertainties, the greater the need for learning.
Organizations learn in order to be improve their adaptability and efficiency
during times of change (Dodgson, 1993). Grantham (1993) states that learning
enables quicker and more effective responses to a complex and dynamic
environment.
Learning also increases information sharing, communication, understanding, and
the quality of decisions made in organizations. In their research on
organizations as learning systems, Nevis et al., (1995) report that all the
firms they observed were learning systems. The authors describe how learning has
changed organizations such as Motorola, Mutual Investment Corporation,
Electricite de France, and Fiat Auto Company. All these firms had both formal
and informal structures and processes for the acquisition, sharing and
utilization of knowledge and skills. The authors observed that even companies
that claimed that they were not good learning organizations had certain core
competencies that could exist only due to certain learning mechanisms in place.
For example, Motorola's learning processes and culture in its engineering and
technical areas enabled the full commitment to total quality by product
manufacturing groups. Federal Express invests heavily in team learning for its
quality improvement (Nevis et al., 1995). The ability to learn continuously is
the reason behind the tremendous success of Japanese firms. Stata (1989) states
that although learning takes time, once the process has started, it feeds on
itself and organizational members get better in their work quicker.
Landry (1992) also states that organizational learning is essential for
innovation. Brown and Duguid (1991) view learning as a bridge between work and
innovation. These views are similar to the concept of innovating adhocracies by
Miller (1986) and Mitzberg (1979).
TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING
Argyris and Schon (1978)
describe three types of organizational learning:
Single-loop learning (SLL): Organizational learning occurs when errors are
detected and corrected and firms carry on with their present policies and goals.
According to Dodgson (1993), SLL can be equated to activities that add to the
knowledge-base or firm-specific competencies or routines without altering the
fundamental nature o the organization's activities. SLL has also been referred
to as lower-level learning by Fiol and Lyles (1985), adaptive learning or coping
by Senge (1990), and non-strategic learning by Mason (1993).
Double-loop learning (DLL): DLL occurs when, in addition to detection and
correction of errors, the organization is involved in the questioning and
modification of existing norms, procedures, policies, and objectives. DLL
involves changing the organization's knowledge-base or firm-specific
competencies or routines (Dodgson, 1993). DLL is also called higher-level
learning by Fiol and Lyles (1985), generative learning (or learning to expand an
organization's capabilities) by Senge (1990), and strategic learning by Mason
(1993). Strategic learning is defined as "the process by which an organization
makes sense of its environment in ways that broaden the range of objectives it
can pursue or the range of resources and actions available to it for processing
these objectives." (Mason, 1993: 843)
Deutero-learning (DL): Deutero-learning occurs when organizations learn how to
carry out single-loop and double-loop learning. The first two forms of learning
will not occur if the organizations are not aware that learning must occur.
Awareness of ignorance motivates learning (Nevis et al., 1995). This means
identifying the learning orientations or styles, and the processes and
structures (facilitating factors) required to promote learning. Nevis et al.,
1995) identify seven different learning styles and ten different facilitating
factors that influence learning. For example, one of the facilitating factors is
identifying the performance gap between targeted outcomes and actual
performance. This awareness makes the organization recognize that learning needs
to occur and that the appropriate environment and processes need to be created.
This also means recognizing the fact that lengthy periods of positive feedback
or good communication can block learning (Argyris, 1994).
Double-loop and deutero learning are concerned with the why and how to change
the organization while single-loop learning is concerned with accepting change
without questioning underlying assumptions and core beliefs. Dodgson states that
the type of organizational learning also depends on where in the organization
learning occurs. Thus, learning can occur in different functions of the
organization such as research, development, design, engineering, manufacturing,
marketing, administration, and sales.
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
PROCESSES
In his literature review on
organizational learning, Huber (1991) describes the following processes or
constructs that contribute to organizational learning:
Knowledge Acquisition: Learning occurs when an organization acquires knowledge.
Acquisition of declarative knowledge or facts and information is achieved by
monitoring the environment, using information systems to store, manage, and
retrieve information, carrying out research and development, carrying out
education and training, patent watching, and bibliometrics (Dodgson, 1993).
Learning occurs not only due to knowledge acquisition from outside the
organization but also due to the rearrangement of existing knowledge, the
revision of previous knowledge structures, and the building and revision of
theories.
Information Distribution: Information distribution refers to the process by
which an organization shares information among its units and members, thereby
promoting learning and producing new knowledge or understanding. Knowledge in
the form of tacit know-how, letters, memos,informal conversations, and reports
are captured and distributed. Brown and Duguid (1991) contend that a lot of
learning and innovation takes place in informal "communities of practice". Very
often, learning in an organization takes place by members sharing stories or
anecdotes of actual work practice as opposed to what is mentioned in formal job
descriptions or procedure manuals. Greater sharing or distribution of
information leads to greater organizational learning.
Information Interpretation: In order for information to be shared, such
information must be interpreted. Information interpretation is the process by
which distributed information is given one or more commonly understood meanings.
Sense-making or the formation of meaning is called procedural knowledge by
Dodgson (1993). Huber (1991) state that individuals and groups have prior belief
structures which shape their interpretation of information and thus the
formation of meaning. These belief structures are stored as a rule-base or a
profile which is automatically applied to any incoming information in order to
form a meaningful knowledge that can be stored. The interaction between stored
mental models and interpretation is critical to understanding how organizations
learn. Greater learning occurs when more and more varied interpretations are
developed.
Organizational Memory: Organizational memory refers to the repository where
knowledge is stored for future use. It is also called "corporate knowledge" or
"corporate genetics" by Prahalad and Hamel (1994). Decision makers store and
retrieve not only hard data or information but also "soft" information, that is,
information with meaning. This soft or interpreted information can be in the
form of tacit know-how, expertise, biases, experiences, lists of contacts,
anecdotes, etc. Organizational memory plays a very critical role in
organizational learning. Both the demonstratability and usability of learning
depend on the effectiveness of the organization's memory. The major challenge
for organizations exists in interpreting information and creating organizational
memory that is easily accessible.
INFLUENCES ON ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING
Dodgson (1993) states that
learning is stimulated both by environmental changes and internal factors
(individuals, culture, etc.) in a complex and iterative manner. Fiol and Lyles
(1985) state that contextual factors such as environment, structure, culture,
and strategy influence organizational learning. The adoption of certain
structures and strategies encourages learning. Strategy influences learning by
providing a boundary to decision-making and a context for the perception and
interpretation of the environment. The strategic options chosen depend on the
learning capacity of the organization. The amount of information flow or
communication between organizational units and individuals determines learning.
Poor communication between people and organizational units can be a major block
to learning and quality improvement. Organizational culture (beliefs,
ideologies, values, and norms) and the amount of resources (money and personnel)
also determine the quality and quantity of learning. While single-loop learning
occurs in a number of organizations, very few organizations experience
double-loop learning or deutero learning. This is due to the fact that
organizational members resort to defensive reasoning tactics in order to "avoid
vulnerability, risk, embarrassment, and the appearance of incompetence"
(Argyris, 1994: 80). This can be attributed to the difference between what
people say ("espoused theory") and what they practice ("theory in use").
Double-loop learning is required in such situations to bridge the gap between
theory and practice.
In the following sections, we will explore, in some detail, influences of
structure, environment, and technology on organizational learning. Greater
emphasis is placed on the influence of technology since we are specifically
interested in the use of information systems to facilitate organizational
learning.
Structure
A centralized, mechanistic
structure tends to reinforce past behaviors or single-loop learning while an
organic, decentralized structure promotes double-loop learning (Fiol & Lyles,
1985). Centralization creates a more fragmented structure which does not support
people to think for themselves. Thus, individuals do not have a comprehensive
picture of the whole. This, in turn, encourages the development of a political
and parochial system that stifles learning. Highly sophisticated single-loop
learning mechanisms (conformance to existing norm and behavior) may in fact take
the organizations on the wrong course, since people may not be able to challenge
underlying assumptions. That is, single-loop learning prevents double-loop
learning from occurring. Therefore, in order to encourage learning,organizations
must move away from mechanistic structures and adopt a more flexible and organic
structure. This requires a new philosophy of management which encourages
openness, reflectivity, and the acceptance of error and uncertainty (Morgan,
1986).
In a learning organization, a leader is not just a charismatic decision maker
but also a teacher, a designer, and a steward of change (Senge, 1990). The
essential function of leadership is to build an organization's culture and shape
its evolution. Leaders as designers should help build a strong foundation of
purpose and core values. They should shape the design of the organizational
structure and policies so as to best fulfill the corporate mission. Leaders
should foster systems thinking and system dynamics to facilitate both individual
and organizational learning (Stata, 1989). System dynamics can be used as a
training tool while planning and quality improvement can accelerate
organizational learning. Leaders as teachers should help individuals restructure
their views of reality by identifying and challenging prevailing mental models
and fundamental assumptions and by promoting double loop learning. Leaders as
stewards should have a sense of purpose and commitment to the organization's
larger mission.
Morgan (1986) and Grantham (1993) suggest that leaders should encourage the
exploration of multiple viewpoints to any problem through dialogue and
discussion. Double-loop learning can be encouraged by adopting a bottom-up or
participatory approach. Actions should emerge as a result of the learning
process and should not be imposed from above. Organizational learning also
requires commitment from executives for a long-term process with adequate budget
and resources (Grantham, 1993).
Environment
Fiol and Lyles (1985) state
that many researchers feel that in order for learning to occur, organizations
must align themselves with the environment so as to remain competitive and
innovative. "Alignment implies that the firm must have the potential to learn,
unlearn, or relearn based on its past behaviors" (Fiol and Lyles, 1985: 804). If
the external and internal environments are complex and dynamic, learning may not
take place. It can occur only when there is a balance between change (the new)
and stability (the old).
Learning organizations will treat competition more as a means of learning than a
hostile force (Mason, 1993). Competition enables organizations to compare their
own performance with others in the industry and learn from that exercise.
Learning must occur within the organization as a result of the firm's
interaction with the environment and this can be achieved through information
processing. Information processing reduces uncertainty and hence increases
learning (Mason, 1993). Organizations scan the environment and acquire
information through "information brokers" or "boundary spanners". These
individuals facilitate exploration and exploitation by carrying out sense-making
and interpreting activities.
Organizations acquire knowledge at birth, through experiences, through
competitive intelligence units (which collect information on other
organizations), by searching the environment, and by hiring new skills
(grafting) (Huber, 1991). Searching can be for solutions to hitherto unsolved
problems or for already identified solutions to known problems. Organizations
will acquire and store information only if such information is of any
significance to them. This means recognizing that the information is meaningful.
This requires some preliminary interpretation of information and evaluation of
its potential value to the organization.
Technology
In this section, we will
discuss the influence of a specific kind of technology, that is, information
systems. Researchers such as Dodgson (1993), Brown and Duguid (1991) merely make
a passing mention of the influence of technology on learning. Both suggest that
new technologies such as multimedia communications, computer-aided learning,
information dissemination and training will be a great ground for future
research in this area. Grantham (1993) states that technology can be used to
clarify assumptions, speed up communications, elicit tacit knowledge, and
construct histories of insights and catalog them. Dodgson does state that
researchers in organization theory have been slow in addressing these
technology-related issues. The influence of information systems, in particular,
can be considered two-fold: direct influence and indirect influence. Information
systems can indirectly influence organizational learning by affecting contextual
factors such as structure and environment which, in turn, influence learning.
They can also directly influence the organizational learning processes discussed
earlier. In the following paragraphs, we will examine both these indirect and
direct means of influence.
The introduction of information systems flattens the structure of the
organization and promotes greater dissemination of information to all
individuals. This makes the organization more informed, flexible, and organic.
Increased availability of information helps members share information thereby
increasing learning. Information systems not only automate but also "informate"
the organization (Zuboff, 1988). These systems are capable of generating new
streams of information thereby expanding knowledge. In an informated
organization, the locus of control shifts from managers to workers, who are now
empowered with all the information required for their effective performance.
Knowledge thus becomes the core of an organization's assets.
Although Mason (1993) has attempted a discussion on the application of
information systems to organizational learning in terms of Huber's constructs,
he does not elaborate on the types of systems that can be used and the types of
benefits that can be realized. We will now review the direct influence of
information systems on learning in terms of Huber's constructs.
Knowledge Acquisition
According to Dodgson (1993),
organizational learning occurs when we create an organizational knowledge base,
firm-specific competencies, and routines. Knowledge-bases are created by
acquiring, storing, interpreting, and manipulating information both from within
and outside the organization. Strategic applications of information systems for
knowledge acquisition can take two forms (Mason, 1993): capabilities for
assimilating knowledge from outside (such as competitive intelligence systems
acquiring information about other companies in the same industry) and
capabilities for creating new knowledge from the reinterpretation and
reformulation of existing and newly acquired information (such as executive
information systems or decision-support systems). They can also be environment
scanning and notification systems, and intelligent and adaptive filters.
Information distribution
In addition to traditional
forms of information distribution such as telephone, facsimile, face-to-face
meetings, and memorandums, computer-mediated communication systems such as
electronic mail, bulletin boards, computerized conferencing systems, electronic
meeting systems, document delivery systems, and workflow management systems can
facilitate the sharing of information. Studies have shown that such systems
increase participation and result in better quality decisions since decisions
are made by consensus and not by domination (Hiltz & Turoff, 1993). These
systems, also called groupware or collaborative systems, allow the joint
construction and distribution of experiences and insights. They also enable
social construction or the creation of social networks of members narrating and
sharing their stories. These systems also support feedback and review mechanisms
among members of a team. Thus, they not only support communication but also
collaboration. The development of such information systems-enabled communities
results in better interpretation of information and greater understanding. In
addition, groupware enables equal participation at all levels and supports
members learning from each other simultaneously (unlike traditional learning
systems which are usually top-down and time-consuming) thereby reducing
cumulative learning cycle time. Group calendars and workflow management systems
can help ensure the timely participation of members in the learning exercise.
Hypermedia systems are emerging as a new class of complex information management
systems which allow people to create, annotate, link together, and share
information from a variety of media such as text, graphics, audio, video, and
images. Gershman and Gottsman (1993) report the successful use of such
hypermedia-based learning systems for corporate knowledge dissemination at
Andersen Consulting. Emerging technologies such as the World Wide Web (based on
the concept of hypermedia) enable organizational members to link and share
multimedia documents across time-zones and distance both from within and outside
the organization. This promotes greater learning and understanding of both
internal and external issues. Turoff, Rao, and Hiltz (1991) have also suggested
the use of collaborative hypermedia to provide collaborative groups the ability
to link large numbers of information units in a dynamic manner. Such systems
would be of great help in recognizing, understanding, defining, investigating,
evaluating, and solving a problem as a group.
Very often an organizational unit looking for information may not know where to
look for such information, while another unit having such information may not
know who might benefit from that information. This can be facilitated by an
expertise locator service or a company-wide electronic distribution list of
people, their areas of expertise, and the projects they are currently working
on, similar to an online yellow pages service. Electronic mail can also help in
this regard where a broadcast could be sent out to the whole organization asking
for locations where such information could be found. The coming together of
these organizational units will not only lead to new information but also to new
understanding.
Information Interpretation
Huber (1991) stated that
organizational learning occurs when organizations undertake sense-making and
information interpretation activities. Organizations are faced with uncertainty
and equivocality when interacting with the environment (Daft & Lengel, 1986).
Uncertainty is reduced by acquiring and processing more information while
equivocality or ambiguity is reduced by carrying out discussions and
face-to-face meetings. That is, the richer the media, the better is the
understanding of information. Face-to-face discussions can be simulated these
days with multimedia conferencing systems which enable members of an
organizational unit or project to collaborate across time and distance barriers
sitting in the comfort of their offices. Such systems enable transmission of
live video, joint-authoring of documents, and online discussions.
Very often, the decision-making process is not fully captured in organizations
but only the endpoint or outcomes of the process (except in the meeting minutes
noted by one individual which may or may not be easily accessible at a later
date). When information is required about the rationale behind certain decisions
made earlier, such information may not be fully available at a later date. The
ability to review and question the rationale behind decisions made earlier is
the basis behind double-loop learning. Decision support systems and issue-based
information systems can support not only the storage and retrieval of
information going into the decision-making process but also the process itself
and the outcomes. This can be used as a tool to promote learning and awareness
among individuals and groups. This approach also prevents members from taking
decisions for granted. Information systems can help in the establishment of
learning laboratories which can be small-scale models of real-life settings in
which management teams learn how to learn together (Senge, 1990). These learning
laboratories can combine meaningful business issues with interpersonal dynamics,
and allow participants to make decisions and experience the consequences of
their decisions through simulation games.
In a number of organizations, double-loop learning does not take place because
the atmosphere is not conducive enough for members to question basic values and
assumptions due to the fear of being reprimanded. With the advent of
conferencing systems which have facilities to preserve anonymity of
participants, members can openly discuss "controversial issues or ideas" without
the fear of facing "dire consequences". Anonymity promotes greater interaction,
equal participation, objectivity, and better problem-solving.
Organizational Memory
Organizational memory can be
made of both hard data such as numbers, facts, figures, and rules as well as
soft information such as tacit knowledge, expertise, experiences, anecdotes,
critical incidents, stories, artifacts, and details about strategic decisions
(Morrison, 1993). We need ways to store and retrieve both kinds of information.
Most organizations have various kinds of information systems such as inventory
control systems, budgetary systems, and administrative systems to store and
retrieve "hard" data or facts but do not have similar systems to capture
"softer" information. Brown (1991) states that ideas generated by employees in
the course of their work rarely gets shared beyond a small group of confidants
or team members. Greater organizational learning can occur if these experiences
and narratives are stored electronically for future reference. Brown has
reported research efforts at Xerox PARC to capture such collective knowledge,
created by communities of practice.
Isakowitz (1993) has suggested the incorporation of hypermedia into
organizational information systems in order to manage organizational memory and
thus reduce uncertainty and equivocality. Hypermedia-based information systems
are highly beneficial in areas that deal with large, complex, richly connected,
and cross-referenced bodies of information (Balasubramanian, 1994). These
systems along with full-text retrieval systems and document management systems
can help store and retrieve vast amounts of organizational knowledge with the
use of modern access facilities such as navigation, queries, and personalized
pathways. This enables organizational learning to be tailored to the pace and
style of the individuals or groups.
Another emerging trend is not to be limited to expert systems (which make
inferences based on a fixed set of rules) but more on systems that would involve
the intervention of humans in the decision-making and interpretation processes
with the use of embedded textual knowledge. Emerging technologies such as
network publishing on the Internet, and the information superhighway can
facilitate the creation of such organizational memories. These tools can not
only capture formal knowledge such as training manuals, employee handbooks,
training material, etc., but also informal knowledge such as tacit know-how,
expertise, experiences, stories, etc., which are most often ignored in
organizations. This informal knowledge or non-canonical practice (Brown &
Duguid, 1991) is the key to organizational learning. Brown and Duguid (1991)
assert that new collaborative technologies should be designed based on these
non-canonical, communities of practice rather than on formal descriptions of
work. The resulting knowledge base can be treated as "group memory" or
"collective intelligence". Encouraging members to share such information to be
stored in electronic form may be a difficult task since they may not desire to
give up valuable information for fear of losing their individual competitive
edge. The first step towards removing such fears is to have an open and flexible
organizational atmosphere as mentioned earlier. The use of information systems
to manage organizational memory improves precision, recall, completeness,
accuracy, feedback, and review, far better than the human components currently
involved in organizational memory.
CONCLUSION
Organizational learning occurs
due to the interplay of various factors such as structure, strategy,
environment, technology, and culture. In this paper, we briefly reviewed some of
the theoretical concepts related to learning without going into much detail
about the various determinants and outcomes. We have not discussed details about
how organizational learning can bring about change and increase effectiveness in
organizations. More and more organizations have realized that in order to be
successful in a highly competitive environment, they must encourage double-loop
and deutero learning. The implications of not becoming a learning organization
can be costly. Grantham (1993) states that it will result in loss of market
share, loss of competitive edge, loss of intangibles such as reputation and the
ability to attract only the best and brightest.
Information systems can facilitate this learning process by supporting the
processes of knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information
interpretation, and organizational memory. With the displacement of people due
to downsizing efforts, organizations are discharging vast amounts of
organizational knowledge without realizing the long-term implications of such
short-term actions. The only way organizations can preserve that knowledge and
further promote organizational learning is to use information systems to store
and retrieve such collective knowledge. In this paper, we reviewed some of the
potential impacts of information systems on organizational leaning. As mentioned
earlier, very little work has been done in this area and there is general
agreement among researchers that organization theorists and information systems
researchers need to come together to explore this topic further.
Information systems developers
should focus on how systems can support the central features of work practice
such as narration, collaboration, and social construction as suggested by Brown
and Duguid (1991). As applications are developed, studies also need to be
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of such information systems in promoting
organizational learning. Learning is important for organizations to survive and
sustain competitive advantage and promote innovation. Information systems can
enable this survival strategy, the innovative spirit, and the competitive edge.
Futher Reading about
Organizational Learning
Argyris, C. 1994. Good
communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, July-August: 77-85.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D.A. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Balasubramanian, V. 1994. Hypermedia: An applications perspective. The X
Journal, May-June: 52-58.
Brown, J.S. 1991. Research that reinvents the corporation. Harvard Business
Review, Jan-Feb: 102-111.
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and
communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and
innovation. Organization Science, 2/1: 40-57.
Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media
richness, and structural design. Organization Science, 32/5: 554-571.
Dodgson, M. 1993. Organizational learning: A review of some literatures.
Organization Studies, 14/3: 375-394.
Fiol, C.M., & Lyles, M.A. 1985. Organizational learning. Academy of Management
Review, 10/4: 803-813.
Gershman, A., & Gottsman, E. 1993. Hypermedia for corporate knowledge
dissemination. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences '93, CA: IEEE Press.
Grantham, C.E., with Nichols, L.D. 1993. The digital workplace: Designing
groupware platforms. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hiltz, S.R. & Turoff, M. 1993. The network nation: Human communication via
computer. MA: MIT Press.
Huber, G.P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science, 2/1:88-115.
Isakowitz, T. 1993. Hypermedia, information systems, and organizations: A
research agenda. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences '93, CA: IEEE Press.
Landry, J. 1992. Information characteristics as constraints to innovation.
Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences '92, CA: IEEE Press, 482-491.
Mason, R.M. 1993. Strategic information systems: Use of information technology
in a learning organization. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences '93, CA: IEEE Press, 840-849.
Miller, D. 1986. Configuration of Strategy and Structure: Towards a Synthesis.
Strategic Management Journal, 7: 233-249.
Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organizations. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Morrison, J. 1993. Team Memory: Information management for business teams.
Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences '93, CA: IEEE Press, 122-131.
Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., and Gould, J. M. 1995. Understanding Organizations
as Learning Systems. Sloan Management Review, Winter: 73-85.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. 1994. Competing for the future, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Senge, P.M. 1990. The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, Fall: 7-23.
Stata, R. 1989. Organizational learning - The key to management innovation.
Sloan Management Review, Spring: 63-74.
Turoff, M., Rao, U., and Hiltz, S. R. 1991. Collaborative hypertext in computer
mediated communications, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences '91, CA: IEEE Press.
Zuboff, S. 1988. In the age of the smart machine. New York: Basic Books.
References
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_organizational_learning.html
http://www.provenmodels.com/5/double-loop-learning/argyris-sch%F6n
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/houtzagers/paginas/Engelseversie/papersgb/orglearningandinfo.htm
|
