Transcript Opportunity Evaluation: Key Points

EAC5858 Module 6:
Organizational Learning and
Knowledge Management
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Knowledge and Learning


Knowledge is an organization’s most important
asset; learning – its most important competency
“Simply put, knowledge has become more important
for organizations than financial resources, market
position, technology, or any other company asset”
(T. Stewart, 1997).
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Characteristics of a learning
organization
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Learning is strategic process, integrated with work
Focus on creativity, generative learning, and
systems thinking
People have continuous access to information and
data resources
Corporate climate encourages, rewards, and
accelerates individual and group learning
Communities of practice (both inside and outside)
Failures are viewed as opportunities to learn
Organization members recognize the importance
of ongoing organization-wide learning
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Attributes of a Learning Organization







Create continuous learning opportunities;
Promote inquiry and dialogue;
Encourage collaboration and team learning;
Establish systems to capture and share
learning;
Empower people towards a collective vision;
Connect the organization to its environment;
Provide strategic leadership for learning.
Watkins and Marsick, 1999 (as cited in Davis & Daley, 2008, p. 53).
Sample learning organizations

AT&T

IBM

Daimler Chrysler

Intel Corporation

Shell Oil Company



Electronic Data Systems
(EDS)

Texas Instruments

Xerox

The World Bank
Federal Express
Ford Motor Company

Harley-Davidson

Hewlett Packard
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Influential Thinkers on Learning
Organizations and Organizational
Learning
Chris Argyris, Harvard
Peter Senge, MIT
Jim March, Stanford
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Argyris’ Loops

Single Loop:


If ‘A’, then ‘B’.
Double Loop:

Why ‘A’? Is ‘B’ the only right answer? Is there a
‘C’? Is there a ‘Z’?
Argyris: Single and Double-Loop
Learning
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Argyris: Espoused Theory & Theory-inUse



Espoused Theory: The beliefs we convey to
others.
Theory-in-Use: The beliefs that actually
govern our behavior.
Argyris believed these two theories were not
usually in sync; organizational learning
should link our espoused behavior with actual
behavior.
Learning organization model
Organization
People
LEARNING
Knowledge
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Technology
Learning organization model
Vision,
culture,
strategy
Organization
People
LEARNING
Knowledge
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Technology
Learning organization model
Organization
People
Employees,
leaders,
customers,
partners,
community
LEARNING
Knowledge
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Technology
Learning organization model
Organization
People
LEARNING
Knowledge
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Technology
-based
Technology
learning &
knowledge
management
Learning organization model
Organization
People
LEARNING
Acquisition,
Creation,
Storage,
Transfer
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Knowledge
Technology
What is Knowledge?

Data - a set of discreet, objective facts
about events

Information - data with meaning applied by
its creator

Knowledge - information which has
meaning to the user
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Types of Knowledge

Explicit Knowledge


knowledge that is clearly described and
stated
Tacit Knowledge

© Alexandre Ardichvili
knowledge that is suggested or implied, not
easily explained
Knowledge Management



Is: A system that supports creating,
storing, and sharing information,
expertise, and insights within and
across communities of people and
organizations (Rosenberg)
Is not: Data warehousing
Should be: Strategic, flexible &
dynamic, intuitive, valued by users,
supportive of organizational learning
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Knowledge Management

Creating knowledge




sharing experiences and information
experimentation/trial & error
interaction of explicit & tacit knowledge
Discovery/Retrieval of knowledge




© Alexandre Ardichvili
understand how the system works
search for specific bits of knowledge
access needed information
Data Mining
Global Knowledge Management System
(Marquardt, 2000)
Knowledge
Application
Knowledge
Acquisition
Knowledge
Storage
Knowledge Data Mining
Sharing
Analysis
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Knowledge Acquisition


Internal collection; tacit knowledge
External:





Benchmarking
Consultants
Sharing ideas with customers, suppliers
Competitive intelligence
Creating knowledge
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Knowledge Storage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Corporate Yellow Pages
Lessons Learned database
Competitor profiles
Company experiences and policies,
process maps, workflows
Company products and policies
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Knowledge storage
Rules. Should be easy for workers to decide :
 Who has the right knowledge
 Who needs their knowledge
 How to submit a lesson learned
Challenges:
 How to store tacit information?
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Knowledge Sharing
Non-technological modes:
 Training sessions
 Conferences
 Briefings
 Internal publications
 Mentoring
 Job rotation
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Knowledge Sharing
Technological modes:
 Online databases
 Electronic mail culture
 EDI with suppliers, etc.
© Alexandre Ardichvili
Two Epistemological Perspectives in KM
and Organizational Learning:


The individual and the social view of learning
and knowledge (Antonacopoulou and Chiva
(2007)
Individual view:



Learning as an individual process
Focus on mechanisms of individual acquisition of
knowledge
Social view:


Learning as a process of interaction among multiple
organizational actors through cultural artifacts
Knowledge creation and acquisition is an outcome of
this interaction.
Individual Point of View


Is subject to the “apple tree” fallacy:
knowledge used by individuals in their
organizational work is assumed to be
readily available to be picked from the
organizational tree of knowledge (a.k.a.
organizational digital databases).
“tends to ignore... the constructed nature of
knowledge: the forms as well as the content
knowledge takes depends on what
questions are asked...” Tsoukas and
Mylonopoulos (2004)
The social perspective:





Organizational knowledge is a form of “social
expertise” (Yanow, 2004);
It is knowing (verb) rather then knowledge (noun)
(Cook & Brown, 1999);
Is an ever-evolving product of collective action and
practice (Gherardi, 2001),
Is situated in specific cultural and historical social
contexts (Nicolini, Gherardi, & Yanow, 2003).
Therefore, most important knowledge is situated in
communities of practice, composed of front-line
employees on the ground, is often narrative and
tacit, and is not codified and quantifiable (Yanow,
2004).
The Two Perspectives Result in Radically
Different Approaches to the Design of
Organizational Learning Systems

The Individual Perspective utilizes the
codification approach, based on linear
design processes and it involves:



some form of organizational needs assessment
identification of existing categories of explicit
knowledge that can be codified to meet the
organization’s knowledge needs
and design and implementation of hardware and
software configurations, meeting the identified
codification requirements.
The Social Perspective: Vygotskian Principles
and Social Learning



Individual learning as a product of sociallysituated, goal-oriented activities
Learning as a mediated by tools action
Cognition and knowledge creation are a
result of dynamic interaction between
subjects of learning, artifacts, and social
others
New Related Developments




Distributed Cognition and Shared Mental Models
Transactive memory
Transactive memory research (Austin, 2003) focuses on
identifying members’ unique and strong cognitive
elements and claims that team performance improves
when members specialize in different aspects of the
team cognitive space (cf. ZPD).
Shared mental model research (Ilgen, Hollenbeck,
Johnson, & Jundt, 2005) suggests that the traditional
input-process-output model is not capable of capturing
emergent properties of affective, behavioral, and
cognitive elements that frequently change the course of
group work. Therefore, it is necessary to examine sociocultural processes that affect team effectiveness.


Work, Learning, and Innovation.
Q: According to B&D, how does
innovation occur through CoPs?
John Seely Brown: Former Chief Scientist
of Xerox Corporation and the director of its
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)





Orr’s studies of service techs
Espoused practice vs real practice
Manuals vs. informal rules and actions
Communities of Practice
Separation of knowledge and practice




Central Features of Work Practice:
Narration, Collaboration, and Social
Construction
Lave and Wenger (1990). Situated
Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation.
Q: What is LLP? How do people learn
in practice (according to Lave and
Wenger)?
Wenger (2006). Communities of Practice.
Communities of Practice (CoP) (Wenger,
2001)

groups of individuals with similar work-related activities
& interests


can exist in multiple locations
may form around a product, task or project

self-forming

informal, membership often fluctuates

The group often set own agenda

continually redefining itself

produce tangible benefits
Communities of Practice (CoP)

Tips for strengthening CoP





treat CoPs as assets
focus resources on CoP that have a strategic
value to the organization
provide time & space for the CoP to interact
designate roles & responsibilities
market the CoP and its successes
Virtual CoPs


Proliferation of online collaboration tools + rapid
global expansion of business organizations =
emergence of virtual communities of practice
(VCoPs) (Von Wartburg, Rost, & Teichert,
2006).
“Electronic networks of practice” or “computermediated discussion forums focused on
problems of practice that enable individuals to
exchange advice and ideas with others based
on common interests.” (McLure-Wasko and
Faraj, 2005, p. 36).

VCoPs play central role in Knowledge
Management and organizational learning
strategies of numerous multinational
corporations, including Caterpillar, Chevron,
Ford, Xerox, IBM, and Shell, to name a few
CoPs and Informal Learning: An
Example of Caterpillar, Inc.
Knowledge Management at Caterpillar,
Inc.






Based on Communities of Practice
Spans the value chain (includes vendors and
dealers)
Delegated community management
Grassroots driven
Uses an Intranet-based Knowledge Sharing
System
Worldwide 2,700 Virtual CoPs with 40,000
Members
The Knowledge Network





Developed at Caterpillar
Based on Communities of Practice
Spans the value chain
Delegated community management
Grassroots driven
HRD Supporting Role: Specific Steps





Enable community interactions by promoting members’
sense of belonging to the community
Promote conditions for open exchange of ideas and
information
Create time and space for exchanging stories and expertise
and teach community members about the value of
storytelling and how to develop and share stories
Insist on at least some initial face-to-face meetings and
provide opportunities for regular live videoconferences (to
help participants get familiar with each others’ appearance
and non-verbal communication clues)
Make the organizational expectations and procedures
transparent through clear and widely accessible
communication of these expectations and rules
(Institutional trust)
Knowledge Management at NASA (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration)
In 2000, US Congress identified need for KM:
 Currently, 40-45% of all science and
engineering workforce are eligible for
retirement
 Mission delays and cancellations due to the
lack of knowledge sharing from mission to
mission
NASA KM Strategies and Activities

Identify and Capture Existing Information Across
Agency:




Efficiently Manage Knowledge Resources:




Expert Systems
Storytelling and oral histories to share lessons learned
Rewarding and supporting mentoring
Intelligent agents to deliver just-in-time knowledge
Know-bots to search the web and NASA websites
Portals, directories, and data mining
Enable Remote Collaboration


Support Communities of Practice
Develop support tools (document managers, activity logs,
discussion tools, taxonomies)
Knowledge Management at NASA
NASA KM Website:
http://km.nasa.gov/home/km_nasahq.html
Useful Links:





KM World: http://www.kmworld.com/
Brint’s KM Network:
http://www.kmnetwork.com/
Gurteen KM site: http://wwwgurteen.com/
KM conferences:
http://www.conferencealerts.com/find.mv?Keywo
rds=knowledge+management
APQC:
http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/site?path=/rese
arch/bmm/osbc/km/index.html
Exploration & Exploitation
in Organizational Learning
(March, 1991)
Exploration vs. Exploitation

EXPLORATION of new possibilities


“... includes things captured by terms such as
search, variation, risk taking, experimentation,
play, flexibility, discovery, innovation.” (p. 71)
EXPLOITATION of exiting knowledge

“... includes such things as refinement, choice,
production, efficiency, selection, implementation,
execution.” (p. 71)
Propositions

The central thesis of March’s paper is that
“maintaining an appropriate balance between
exploration and exploitation is a
primary factor in system survival and
prosperity” (March, 1991: 71). Because…


All Exploration: “... suffer the costs of
experimentation without any of its benefits.”
Undeveloped ideas, little distinctive competence.
All Exploitation: “… trapped in suboptimal
equilibria.” Can’t adapt to changing
circumstances.
A Model of Mutual Learning (MML)

Mutual learning of organization and the individuals in it.





“Organizations store knowledge in their procedures, norms, rules, and
forms.” (i.e., organizational routines or organizational code)
“They accumulate such knowledge over time, learn from their members.”
“At the same time, individuals in an organization are socialized to
organizational belief.”
Model described an “organizational code” composed of shared “languages,
beliefs, and practices” (March, 1991: 74). An organizational code both
shapes and is shaped by members’ beliefs.
March argues that “Such mutual learning has implications for
understanding and managing the trade-off between exploration and
exploitation in organizations.”
Conclusion

March (1991) constructed a computational model of an organization
to explore how different factors influence the nature and
effectiveness of organizational learning.

In his model, individuals within the organization are initially endowed
with diverse sets of beliefs. These individuals interact with
an “organizational code” that is meant to represent the
organization’s process of socializing members to the organization’s
language, beliefs, and practices.

The organizational code learns from the best-performing individuals,
and individuals, in turn, learn from the code. As a result, the
organization’s knowledge improves over time.




Individuals and organizations tend to pursue solutions similar to
already-known solutions because bounded rationality limits
their ability to search all possible domains of knowledge and biases
them toward more salient areas of their own prior experience.
The utilization of existing knowledge, routines and experience
increases the likelihood that solutions will be found quickly and at
reasonable costs.
The more immediate returns from exploitation tend to cause
organizations to exhibit a myopic bias whereby exploitation is
overemphasized at the expense of exploration.
However, conformity to the organizational code drives
out interpersonal heterogeneity, which results in lower long-run
performance than would be possible.



In short, March’s model demonstrated in an organizational context
that although exploitation yields more certain and immediate returns,
exploration creates and preserves the requisite variety of
knowledge necessary for the organization to sustain its learning in
the long term.
The core result is that rapid updating by the organizational code
and slow learning by the individual members would produce the
highest long-run performance.
Despite significant work on this topic, we still do not understand
how self-destructive processes of exploitation can be avoided. This
has led to calls for more work on how managers can help firms to
better maintain the balance between exploration and exploitation
(Gupta, Smith and Shalley 2006; March 2004).