Bradford Centre for International Development.

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

Georgios Charalampidis

Bradford 2005

II

Abstract.

This paper is an attempt to anal yse the dynamics of the learning organisation by acting complementary to the theoretical schemata

developed fo r this purpose. For this, the theory of knowledge management and learning organisations is being revisited. In this desk study, learning organisations are conceptualised as a dialectical process, in which various contradictions are synthesised through dyna mic interactions between

individuals, the organisation and the environment. Most of the theoretical schemata proposed for the anal ysis of a learning organisation do not usuall y take under consideration the interaction of the organisation with its environment and the role of the information technology in an organisation of this t ype. This essay acts complementary to the existing theoretical framework and attempts to develop a hybrid model of learni ng organisation; the e-learning. organisation.

III

Table of contents.

1. Introduction. ................................................................................................................... - 1 2. Knowledge and Knowledge Management ..................................................................... - 4 2.1 The emerge of knowledge as competitive edge for organisations. .......................... - 4 2.2 What is knowledge? ................................................................................................. - 6 2.3 levels of knowledge ............................................................................................... - 11 2.4 Types of knowledge. .............................................................................................. - 12 2.5 The Knowledge Economy. .................................................................................... - 15 2.6 Core competencies. ................................................................................................ - 18 2.7 Knowledge Management. ...................................................................................... - 20 3. Learning and the learning organisation. ...................................................................... - 26 3.1 Definitions of learning. ...................................................................................... - 26 3.2 Can organizations learn? ........................................................................................ - 29 3.3 Organisational learning .......................................................................................... - 33 3.4 The learning organisation. ..................................................................................... - 36 3.4.1 Systems thinking and the learning organization ............................................. - 39 3.4.2 Dialogue and the learning organization .......................................................... - 40 4. Presentation and analysis of the Hidding and Catterall learning organisation model. - 43 4.1 Anatomy of a learning organisation....................................................................... - 43 4.2 Anatomy of a Learning Organisation? ............................................................... - 45 5. Towards an e-learning organisation: a proposal for a hybrid learning organisation model. ......................................................................................................................................... - 53 5.1 Learning organisations and information technology. ............................................ - 53 5.2 Information technology solutions .......................................................................... - 55 5.2.1 Intranet and Internet ........................................................................................ - 55 5.2.2 Groupware - Lotus Notes ................................................................................ - 56 5.2.3 Intelligent Agents ............................................................................................ - 56 5.2.4 Mapping Tools ................................................................................................ - 57 5.2.5 Document Management .................................................................................. - 58 5.2.6 Knowledge Enriched Solutions ...................................................................... - 59 5.2.7 Information filtering via IT ............................................................................. - 59 5.3 From learning to e-learning organisations. ............................................................ - 61 6. Conclusion. .................................................................................................................. - 68 7. References. ................................................................................................................... - 69 -

II

List of figures.

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

Figure 2: The knowledge spectrum.6

Figure 3: Learning process component model6

Figure 4: Anatomy of a learning organisation6

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

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

III

1. Introduction.
In recent years global economic structure has started to acknowledge knowledge as a distinct factor in production sequence. The reasons for the development of knowledge as a fundamental asset for companies and organisations are innumerable and their anal ys is is beyond the purposes of this study.

Knowledge economy represents an economic structure in which the implementation of knowledge replaces, in some degree or entirel y, the traditional means of production; that is capital, land and labour (Drucker, 1993). Organisations and corporations, in order not to lose track and been left behind as the global econom y recognises the importance of knowledge as a key factor to productivit y, adopted new paradigms,( for example knowledge management and knowledge product ivit y) and reformed their organisational structure (e.g. learning organisations).

The main objective to be pursued in this study is the development of a hybrid model of learning organisation based on the model proposed by Hidding and Catterall (1998). A lthough some models of learning

organisations have been proposed by various authors (for example, Argyris 1996, Easterby-Smith 1999, Hidding and Catterall 1998) most of them treat learning organisations as closed systems. In other words, those models

-1-

neglect to place the learning organisation in the wider societal and economic context but onl y emphasise on the internal structure of

organisations of this type.

This desk study utilises secondary data in an attempt to act complementar y to these models of lea rning organisations and develop a hybrid model that takes under consideration the interaction and interrelation of learning organisations with their environment. Taking this hybrid model a step further the author proposes the creation of the e -learning or ganisation; in order to signify the importance of the role of information technology in organisations of this type.

More anal yticall y, this essay starts by addressing issues related to knowledge and knowledge management (chapter 2). In this chapter a sm all reference is made on how knowledge became the key asset for organisations (2.1) followed by an anal ysis of what knowledge entails (2.2) and t ypes and levels of knowledge (chapters 2.3 and 2.4). An anal ysis of the notion of knowledge econom y (chapter 2. 5) and core competencies (chapter 2.6) follows and in the last section of this chapter (2.7) the concept of knowledge management is addressed.

Chapter 3 of this essay emphasises on the concepts of learning and learning organisations. In the first part of this chapter (3.1) an attempt to define the

-2-

term learning takes place. Owing to the fact that learning usuall y refers to individuals and not to organisations section (3.2) critically examines if organisations have the abilit y to learn, followed by an a nal ysis of two notions that are frequentl y generate great confusion; organisational

learning (3.3) and learning organisation (3.4). The following chapter (chapter 4) focuses on presentation (4.1) and critique (4.2) of the Hidding and Catterall (1998) learn ing organisation model.

Chapter 5 consists of an anal ysis towards the development of the hybrid e learning organisation model. More analyticall y, in the first section of this chapter (5.1) evidence are submitted in order to justify the relation among learning organisations and information technology; while in the next section (5.2) a more technical approach is adopter to present some information technology mechanisms and software that are already in use by organisations, enterprises and businesses. In t he following section (5.3) the e-learning organisation model is presented.

-3-

2. Knowledge and Knowledge Management

Ke y co ncep t s: Kn o w led g e, Eco n o mi c E ra , Kn o wl ed g e E ra , C o n cep tio n s o f K n o w led g e, Lev el s o f K n o w led g e, T yp es o f Kn o wled g e, Kn o wl ed g e Eco n o my, Co r e Co mp e ten cie s, Kn o wl ed g e Ma n a g em en t , La w o f D im in i sh in g Retu rn s, La w o f Di min ish in g Ma rg in a l Uti li ty , Co mp e ti ti ve Ad v a n ta g e.

This chapter will address issues related to knowledge and knowledge management. Starting with a historic flashbac k of the term knowledge the author gives evidence as far as how knowledge emerged as a competitive edge for organisations is concerned. This is followed by an anal ysis of the terms knowledge, knowledge econom y and core competencies; while in the last section the notion of knowledge management is being criticall y presented.

2.1 The emerge of knowledge as competitive edge for organisations.

Economic history has been divided into economic eras based on the dominant form of production. Savage (1996) in his book Fifth Generation Management acknowledges four major economic eras: Late Agricultural: where land is dominant source of wealth. Earl y Industrial: with labour replacing land as main form of production.

-4-

Late Industrial: with a shift towards capital and Earl y Knowledge: with knowledge being the fundamental form of production.

Figure 1 represents graphicall y those economic eras based on cha nges in the primary source of wealth.

Fig u re 1 Economic Eras Based on Changes in the Primary Source of Wealth (Source: Savage C. 1996, Fifth Generation Management, p.119)

The rise of knowledge as a form of production and a source of wealth signified the emergence of a new economic era; widel y known as the Knowledge Era. As earl y as the 1980s many eminent economists, -such as Drucker (1988) and Machlup (1984), and Romer (1992) -, prognosticated the ascendancy of knowledge over the other sources of wealth. Also, they predicted that this dominance of knowledge would give rise to a new

-5-

economic era; where knowledge would be the fundamental form of production.

The

contemporary

prolifer ation

of

interest

for

knowledge

in

the

organisational context is primaril y associated with the high -rate of change and the emergence of new trends that took place in the environment of the organisation. There is a great wealth of literature that deals with this subject (Kleine, 1998, Prusak, 1997, Wikstrom & Norman, 1994). Some of these trends are presented below:

The globalisation of the econom y The recognition of knowledge as a distinct factor in production The awareness of the value of specialised knowledge in coping with the pressures of globalisation.

Information technology systems are becoming cheaper. Changing nature of goods and services

2.2 What is knowledge?

The debate around what knowledge is or how is perceived is not a newborn issue. Theaetetus which probabl y dates from about 369 BC arguabl y the greatest work of Plato on epistemology offers a discussion of the question

-6-

what is knowledge (Bostock 1988, Cornford 1935, Sedley 2004, Chappell 2005).

Like many other Platonic dialogues, Thea etetus is dominated by question and answer exchanges (dialogue=) with Socrates as main questioner. His two respondents are Theaetetus, a brilliant young

mathematician and Theaetetus tutor Theodorus (Bostock 1988).

Plato as many other Greek phi losophers is using the obstetric method ( ). Via this method the questioner is trying to assist thei r responders through dialogue to express their thoughts on a subject and graduall y reject what is not relevant with the topic. For example, if a area of interest A is related to X and not to Z and Y a questioner that is adopting this method, will firstl y let you express your thoughts and having this as a starting point will eventuall y make you realize that A is not related to X and Z. The interesting part is that the questioner will not unveil to you that A is related to X at the end of the dialogue. His/Her main interest is to guide your thoughts towards the right direction and not to suppl y you with an answer. That is the re ason why some of these dialogues were finishing in an impasse (Sedley 2004).

Theaetetus is a dialogue that ends in impasse (), thus the dialogue is completed without discovering what knowledge is. Theaetetus, though

-7-

offers three significant insig hts of what knowledge is not (Sedley 2004, Chappell 2005):

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

The Merriam -Webster online Dictionary defines knowledge as:

a (1) the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarit y gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding

And continues:

the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acqu ired by mankind.

The

above stated

definition of knowledge is

over simplistic when

knowledge is anal ysed in the context of an organization. This is owing to the fact that in an organizational context:

-8-

knowledge means much more than access to informati on and data. It encompasses our experience and expertise, our sensitivit y to the human factors that are central to the successful use of technology and our belief that we need to constantl y reach out and acquire more knowledge to fuel our progress (Grenie r and Metes, 1995 p.8).

As a starting point knowledge can be explicated and elucidated at its most rudimentary level as the collection of what an individual knows and understands and how he/she perceives and interprets the environment. The level of the individual is essential, since the above mentioned simplified definition insinuates that knowledge is the ramification of the modus operandi that an individual utilises to transform data to information. Knowledge is therefore information, combined with exper ience, context, interpretation and reflection (Davenport et al., 1998a).

In the debate towards a definition of knowledge Quintas et al (1997) adopt a rather contrastive approach to the one mentioned above. They argue that knowledge is not just a product o f the interpretation of facts, neither skills waiting to be discovered and used but rather a set of relationships in which power is entailed in a great degree. They also treat knowledge as a process rather than a product.

-9-

Nonaka and Takaeuchi (1995) are also of the opinion that knowledge is rather a process and not a product as they propose that knowledge is a dynamic human process of justifying personal beliefs towards the truth.

There are many theoretical schemata that

attempt to anal yse what

knowledge is and how it can be perceived from dissimilar or contradictor y perspectives (e.g. as a process or a product). In an attempt to unveil some similarities among them, one can argue that most of these schemata emphasise on the individual and highlight that k nowledge is context dependent.

Taking

into

consideration

the

above

mentioned

argumentation,

an

assumption based on logic should be that in an organisational level knowledge can be defined as the sum of all the knowledge and skills that each individual member of the organisation possesses. But is this the case? In addition to the individual knowledge of each employee; organisational knowledge might exist in the organisational processes and corporate information repositories. To synopsise organisational kno wledge can be explicated as the one shared among its employees, shaped and developed according to the organisational processes, history and environment, is usuall y stored in corporate information repositories and allows for

languaging (Von Krogh et. al. 1999) a process in which organisational language and terminology is constantl y advancing.

- 10 -

2.3 levels of knowledge

In our attempt to define and specify what knowledge is, it is crucial to identify the different levels and t ypes (See below Chapter 2.4 ) of knowledge that is possible to occur and exist in an organisation. In this organisational context, a simplified categorisation is the one that identifies two levels of knowledge: Lower or Practical; the one closer to action and Higher or Theoretical; w ith emphasis on higher level of

understanding that have little or no relation to practical action (Baker & Badamshina, 2002).

Another approach to identify levels of knowledge is to perceive knowledge as a three step procedure from recognising elements of concepts, to form relationships between concepts, to specifying the conditions under which these relationships appl y (Baker and Badamshina, 2002). A similar view characterizes knowledge as progressing from relational thinking to systems thinking and, within systems thinking, as progressing from identifying s ystem characteristics, to detecting system trends, to explaining system dynamics (Baker and Badamshina, 2002). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) consider knowledge as a process of eliciting from general lower level

- 11 -

knowledge crucial sections and then amalgamate them in order to generate higher level expertise- knowledge.

Differentiating between lower and higher levels of knowledge may also refer to identifying separate knowledge elements as opposed to knowledge s ystems. The combination of knowledge elements in order to create knowledge systems can be seen as a transition f rom lower to higher levels of knowledge. Knowledge systems can be frameworks, theories or models that not onl y show relationships, suggest connections, facilitate

comparisons, and predict consequences but also can be used to interpret and incorporate new experiences and information (Baker and Badamshina, 2002).

In practice though, organisations avoid to use each level of knowledge separatel y but combine elements from both high and lower levels of knowledge. This combination of those two levels of knowledg e creates a third level; the one that organisations utilise.

2.4 Types of knowledge.

Most authors classify knowledge as explicit or tacit (Cliffe, 1998 Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Explicit knowledge requires small -scale

interpretation. It is usuall y co ded and recorded in some form written or

- 12 -

electronic- such as a document or database. As a result it can be transferred and communicated quickl y and easil y. It is inactive until transformed and applied to support decision making. Then it is considered and treated as information as opposed to raw data.

Tacit knowledge is not usuall y recorded and as a consequence frequentl y requires a high degree of interpretation and anal ysis. It can be anal ysed in two spheres. The first one is the technical sphere, which encircles the information and expertise captured in the term know - how. The second is the cognitive sphere. It can be encapsulated as entrenched beliefs and perceptions, mental models, experiences and actions, ideals and values. Tacit knowledge is commun icated by word of mouth and shared experiences and it is rather unusual to be found in a structured form (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

At this point it is crucial to underline that explicit and tacit knowledge should not be interpreted as two contradictor y notions that neutralise each other. Nether as two notions that their boundaries are clear in a way that they are not related to each other. On the contrary, they should be treated as supplementary and interrelated to each other.

Although this classific ation of knowledge to explicit and tacit is based on logical assumptions; it could be criticised as oversimplifying or limiting.

- 13 -

Hidding and Catterall (1998) propose a third t ype of knowledge which they name emerging. Emerging knowledge is characteris ed as partl y explicit and partl y tacit and usuall y relates to a cutting edge field of expertise. In order to obtain it, one draws upon recorded information as well as the combined knowledge of a group of experts. Problem solving in this area is not-neither could be- the task of one individual/expert. Usually of a group of experts should be involved and collaborate in order to provide solutions and ways forward. They graphicall y represented their thoughts in a schema they called the knowledge spectrum.

F i g u r e 2 : Th e kn o w l e d g e s p e c t r u m

Source: ( H id d i n g a nd Ca t tera ll, 1 9 9 8 p .8 )

- 14 -

2.5 The Knowledge Economy.

In chapter 2.1 we briefl y commented on how knowledge emerged as the dominant source of production and generated the foundation for the passage to a new economic era; the knowledge econom y. In this chapter we will anal yse in great depth the semantics of thi s new economic epoch.

According to Drucker (1993) Knowledge econom y exemplifies an economic form and structure where the application of knowledge substitutes in some degree capital, raw materials and labour as forms of production. In other words, knowled ge econom y signifies the passage from the late industrial era to the knowledge revolution and era (see also chapter 2.1).

As a starting point, it has been argued that in the knowledge -based econom y the success of the organisation will depend on developin g, expanding, protecting, and renewing knowledge and then speeding it to market in a stream of rapidl y and continuall y improved products and services (Stewart, 1997). The rate at which organizations acquire, create, and effectivel y utilize knowledge to pro duce better products and services will become the only sustainable competitive advantage (Stata 1989). This view focuses on the knowledge outputs, i.e., knowledge -infused products

- 15 -

and services. It also suggests the line between services and products will become blurred (Stewart 1997, Davenport & Prusak, 1998b).

While this may be true, the idea that organizations will need to rapidl y develop and deliver knowledge -infused products and services does not go very far in detailing how our economic landscape wil l be transformed. Hamel (2000) and Malhotra (2000) see the new econom y as having at least as much to do with radicall y new business concepts or models as with new knowledge-infused services and products.

Demographics are considered to be the principal for ce that drives this shift towards the knowledge econom y. (Drucker, 1993). In the near future the under population of the developed world will dictate (if this is not the case already) that economic growth will no longer be achieved by employing more people or from increasing consumer demand; but from efficientl y utilising the one form of production that developed countries still have the competitive advantage: knowledge. In addition to demographics this

argumentation can also be backed up by two fundamenta l Laws of Economics: the Law of Diminishing Returns; that states that as extra units of one factor of production (in our argument labour) are employed with all the others held constant, the output generated by each additional unit will eventuall y fall and

- 16 -

The Law of Diminishing Marginal U tility; that states that as extra units of a commodity are consumed by an individual the satisfaction gained from each unit will fall (Bannock et al., 2003).

The efficient utilisation of knowledge as a new factor of production will significantl y reduce the possibilit y of those two laws to take effect. This is owing to the fact that the new factor of production, knowledge, is not seems to be a limited or scarce resource in quantit y or quality but, on the contrary, globall y accessible and available. Knowledge, though, as a resource for production has a major disadvantage. It makes itself

superseded much more frequentl y than the other forms of production. This is the consequence of the radical every day advancement of knowledge especiall y on the sphere of expertise. In economic eras prior to knowledge econom y (e.g. industrial era), an organisations competitive advantage was based simpl y on the efficient utilisation of the forms of production.

In the emerging knowledge era, an organisations competitive advantage emanates from knowledge. Knowledge is the foundation on to which every knowledge era organisation develops its core competencies. The

advancement of the c utting edge of knowledge (knowledge expertise) is considered to be fundamental for the survival of organisations in this highl y competitive environment. This is owing to the fact that the core

- 17 -

competencies of an organisation in the knowledge econom y are de veloped and enhanced analogicall y to the advancement of knowledge expertise.

2.6 Core competencies.

At this point it is crucial to make a small reference to what core competencies are. The main notion of core competencies where developed by Hamel and Pr ahalad (1994) in their book competing for the future. They initiate a concept based on the assumption that an organisation is capable of developing cutting edge areas of expertise which are innovative and distinctive and at the same time crucial to organ isations long term survival and growth. As they state:

in the 1990s managers will be judged on their abilit y to identify, cultivate and exploit the core competencies that make growth possible. Indeed, they will have to rethink the concept of the corpora tion itself (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994).

Tampoe posits that core competencies are the technical sub -system of an organization and therefore embedded within its production and

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

- 18 -

Core competencies are not and for this reason should not be seen as being fixed. By nature they could not be characterised as static. On the contrary, core competencies have a dynamic edge. This means that they reform according to the needs of the organisa tional environment. This implies that core competencies are characterised by a high level of flexibilit y and adjustabilit y.

A great number of authors that deal with core competencies (Gallon, Stillman and Coates, 1995, Hamel & Prahalad, 1994, Tampoe, 1 994) adopt an adaptive approach on the subject. As organisations evolve and adapts to new circumstances and opportunities, so its core competencies will have to adapt and change. In other words, those authors are of the opinion that core competencies are d eveloped as a consequence of the organisations adjustment to the new environment. Although this is an argument that is based on logic there is a possibilit y that first an organisation develops and changes its core competencies and as a consequence the org anisations environment adjusts to this change. For example, Microsoft, a leading computer software enterprise; firstl y invented the software package called Windows and then adjusted its production line and marketing on this software.

According t o Hamel and Prahalad (1994) organisations of the knowledge econom y should aim achieve a combination of the following:

- 19 -

Dramaticall y shift consumer needs/tastes in an existing market. Rapidl y enter emerging markets. Create new markets.

In order to accomplish this, organisations should identify and develop its core competencies. In addition to this, organisations should be able to acknowledge what kind of core competencies should need in the future; in order to maintain or expand their percentage of the ma rker. In other

words, core competencies could be characterised as a fundamental step in the strategic planning procedure of organisations. There is a great wealth of literature (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994, Tampoe, 1994, Gallon, Stillman and Coates, 1995) that underlines the necessit y of acknowledging and

developing core competencies as the basis upon which organisations initiate their growth.

2.7 Knowledge Management.

Knowledge Management is considered to be an over -researched area and there is also a gr eat wealth of literature that deals with this subject. For the above mentioned reasons, at this part of this essay an attempt is made to

- 20 -

present some of the criticisms and develop a discussion on this area rather than just present a literature review on kn owledge management.

There is a dispute as far as the origins of the term knowledge management are concerned. Some writers insist that the term knowledge management was first introduced in a 1986 keynote address to a European management conference (American Productivit y and Qualit y Center, 1996). Sveib y

(2001) highlights that Karl Wiig used the term Knowledge Management for the first time in a presentation in 1986 for the first time and went on to

publish several books on his teams experiences (Wiig, 199 4). Wiig in 1990, according to Sveiby (2001), wrote possibl y the first article in the

world with Knowledge Management in the title: Knowledge Management: An Introduction" in Proceedings of IAKE Second Annual International Conference. Despite the dispute about the origins of knowledge

management, the term had immediate and vast appeal and, at the same time, spawned strongl y felt criticism.

The major criticisms of knowledge management are that (Baker and Badamshina, 2002):

It

has

associated

closel y

with

i nformation

management

and

information technology (IT). It entails that knowledge can be managed. It tends to be as broad and vague as to have little meaning. - 21 -

It tends to focus on knowledge creation, capture, sharing, use and reuse, rather than providing a true vision and strategy that conveys how knowledge -based enterprises will function and succeed in the new knowledge-based econom y.

In addition to the above generalised in approach - criticisms of knowledge management, more precise criticisms have been de veloped at more specific aspects of knowledge management. The most widel y used and abused definition of knowledge management is the one that interprets it as a group of processes that aim towards the creation, capture, storage, sharing, application and reu se of knowledge. (S ydanmaanlakka, 2000). This t ype of definition is criticized for making knowledge management appear to involve somewhat mechanistic and sequential process steps and for focusing attention on explicit knowledge artefacts as opposed to taci t knowledge. Knowledge engineering reflects this view of knowledge

management. Alternative interpretations of knowledge management have been proposed that emphasise into the intricacies of knowledge and knowledge management. For example, Snowden (2000) def ines knowledge management as:

The identification, optimization, and active management of intellectual assets, either in the form of explicit knowledge held in artefacts or as tacit knowledge possessed by individuals or communities. The optimization of

- 22 -

explicit knowledge is achieved by the consolidating and making available of artefacts. The optimization of tacit knowledge is achieved through the creation of communities to hold, share, and grow the tacit knowledge .

And continues:

The

active

management

of

intellectual

assets

is

the

creation

of

management processes and infrastructure to bring together artefacts and communities in a common ecology that will sustain the creation, utilization and retention of intellectual capital.

This definition acknowle dges that knowledge management should focus on both explicit and tacit knowledge, as well as the interrelation and synthesis among them, and recognises some of the procedures for achieving this. It does not, conversely, unveil and recognise other aspects o f knowledge management, such as how knowledge will be utilised or how a knowledge based endeavour/organisation will eventuall y operate.

Baker and Badamshina (2002) are of the opinion that the difficulties with the definition of the notion knowledge management are possible to be surmounted if one thinks of knowledge management as building and

enhancing knowledge systems and embedding work systems within these knowledge systems, rather than managing something as nebulous as

- 23 -

knowledge per se (Baker and Badamshina, 2002, p.10) . Hence, a more holistic definition of knowledge management would be creating

knowledge-rich environments and knowledge-rich interactions in the conduct of work and developing and managing integrated, well -configured knowledge systems and increasingl y embedding work systems within these knowledge systems (Baker and Badamshina, 2002, p.10).

Approached in this manner, knowledge management downgrades the role of IT. It is obvious that both knowledge systems and the processes of embedding work systems within knowledge systems can be managed. Finall y, this definition is broad enough to capture all aspects of knowledge management but at the same time precise on defining what a knowledge s ystem is.

The above mentioned definition does not excessivel y emphasise on the knowledge management to the point of ignoring the bigger picture. On the contrary, it encompasses an organisation -wide vision an approach that is not present in the literature -, although there is a documented need for both vision and strategy. This perspective of knowledge management empowers the organization to recognize its essential knowledge fields, its present and future knowledge priorities, aims and objectives, and to act towards contracting fundamental knowledge system s and embedded work systems within them. Last but not least, it assists the organization to recognise the

- 24 -

most suitable set of knowledge management practices and determine how information technology (IT) and artificial intelligence (AI) can best enable these knowledge systems and the embedded work systems within them.

To summarise, this chapter offered an insight to some of the most fundamental issues regarding knowledge and knowledge management. The following chapter will look upon issues related to the n otions of learning and the learning organisation.

- 25 -

3. Learning and the learning organisation.

Key concepts: Learning, Organisational Context of Learning, Low/High Level of Learning, Individual/Organisational Learning, Organisational Theory-In-Use, Adaptive/Proactive Learning, Social/Technical Approach to Organisation Learning, Learning Organisation, Learning Company, Top-toDown/ Democratic Approach to LO, Systems Thinking, Dialogue.

In the following sections of thi s chapter an anal ysis of the term learning and related to it notions takes place. After learning is defined at the beginning of the chapter emphasis is given on the organisational context of learning. A critical examination of if organisations are capabl e to learn is presented and then the notions of the organisational learning and learning organisation are being exemplified.

3.1 Definitions of learning.

A definition of learning could be retrieved from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English that define learning as knowledge gained trough reading and study. In the same dictionary the entry learn is expressed as:

To gain knowledge of a subject or skill in an activit y, by experience, by studying it or by being taught. To find out information, news etc by hearing it from someone else. To get to know something so well that you can easil y

- 26 -

remember it To graduall y understand a situation and start behaving in the way people expect you to behave. To understand a situation or develop a skill by learning from your mistakes and experiences .

Stewart

(1991)

characterises

learning

as

natural,

continuous

and

inevitable process that manifests itself rather instinctivel y. The author insinuates that learning could be perceivable on organisationa l and individual level. Stewartss model of the learning process component is shown below (Figure 3).

Learning (Individual and Organisational)

Knowledge skills values and altitude

Behaviour Figure 3: Learning Process Component Model Source: Stewart, 1991

According to the Learning Process Component Model, learning entails changes in both individual and organizational level. Those changes in

- 27 -

skills, values and altitude result in changes in the behaviour of the individual and the organisation.

Another classification of learning is the one that separates it into low level and high level. Low level learning emphasises on the behaviour that may or may not be repetition of the past behaviour and it forms a cognitive association (Applebaurn & Gorans, 1997, Fiol & Lyles, 1985). This distinction among high and lower level of learning is similar to the learning procedure that Argyris and Schon (1978) define as a single loop learning in which the individual responds to the unorthodox situation by adjusting approaches, strategies and assumptions.

High level learning, on the other hand, is related to the implementation of complex systems, rules and dir ectives in interaction with new initiatives and understanding of causalit y (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). This type of learning often mobilises and affects the whole organisational structure. It is related to Argyris and Schons (1978) theory of double loop learnin g, in which the respond to an identified malfunction or error takes the format of a mutual examination into the organizational norms in an attempt to enhance consistency and effectiveness.

- 28 -

3.2 Can organizations learn?

In most occasions the term learni ng is related to the abilit y of individuals and rarel y in an organisational context. The main question that will pursue to answer in this section is if organisations are capable (or not) of learning.

One of the authors in this field (Prange 1999, p. 27) remarks that one of the greatest m yths on organizational learning is the who question, that is, the way in which learning might be considered organizational. There are those who argue that it is individuals, not organizations, who learn. In other words, learning refers to the processes that incarnate within the individual mind.

Salomon (1993) is of the opinion that the learning/cognitive processes and the cultivation of skills and competencies, and in general terms everything cognitive is being residin g in the brains of individuals. In addition to this, the environment acquires a subordinate role; as social, cultural, and technological factors are not considered to be of great importance by the author.

This perception is associated with a particular aspect of our ego. According to this comprehension of our self; our body and especially our skin is becoming the periphery into which our world is developed. What happens

- 29 -

outside this periphery is extraneous to us. In this simplistic perception, three rules exist: (Sampson 1993, p.34): the boundary of the individual is coincident with the boundary of the body; the body is a container that houses the individual; the individual is best understood as a self -contained entit y.

Nevertheless though, in our every day life a rather dissimilar set of cognitive processes appear. Individuals seem most of the times to cogitate and act in conjunction with others; after taking under consideration their environment. The environmental surro undings in this context play a significant role and affect the cognitive process of individuals.

Moreover,

the

arrangements

functions,

and

structures

of

these

environmental surroundings usuall y transform during this process to become authentic elements of the learning that results from the cognitive partnership with them. In other words, it is not just the person - solo who learns, but the person - plus, the whole system of interrelated factors. (Salomon 1993: xiii)

This interrelation, as it was describ ed above, is not a newborn issue. Cole and Engestrom (1993) highlighted the importance of environmental

- 30 -

surroundings and factors in learning. The authors argue that this is related to a dialogical understanding of selfhood. (Cole and Engestrom, 1993)

One of the earliest examples of how individual and organisational learning interrelate and interact could be retrieved from the work of Argyris and Schon (1978,1996). They suggest that each member of an organization

creates his/her own perception of the theo ry-in-use (1978 p. 16). This perception is usuall y interpreted by the individuals as insufficient. For this reason they are constantl y working towards ameliorating their perception of learning.

Consequentl y, our inquest into organizational learning shoul d not onl y refer to non-dynamic entities identified as organizations; but, on the contrary, with an active process of organizing. Individuals should repetitivel y be trying to know the organization, and to know themselves in the context of the organization. Simultaneousl y, their continuing efforts to know and to test their knowledge represent the object of their inquiry. In other words, organizing is reflexive inquiry.

Other than this, there must be public illustrations of organizational contemporary theore tical schemata (theory-in-use) to which individuals can refer to. These public illustrations are called organisational maps. These

- 31 -

are the shared perceptions of the organization which individuals jointl y create and utilise in order to guide their own inqui ry.

Organizational theory-in-use, continually constructed through individual inquiry, is encoded in private images and in public maps. These are the media of organizational learning (Argyris and Schon 1978 pp.16 -17). From another critical viewpoint, these could also be characterised as the link among the individual and organisational learning procedures.

As a consequence, organisations are capable of learning. But how well can they learn? In their review of individual and social aspects of learning, Salomon and Perkins comment (1998):

If organizations can learn, this does not mean that they learn very well. A strong theme in the literature on organizational learning is the weakness of the learning system involved. The learning of the collective suffers from a startling range of limitations.

Those limitations are aggravated by the organizational character of the learning. For instance, different individuals within an organization may interpret success in a dissimilar way. Also, what is perceived as an efficient policy or a productive idea by a group of people in an organisation might not perceived in the same way by another group for reasons of

- 32 -

contradictory interests. In addition to this, the open nature (see below pp.48-49) and this affects organisati onal learning most of the times in a negative way.

In summary, organizations, like individuals, can learn. Many of the fundamental phenomena of learning are the same for organizations. However, organizational learning also has distinctive characteristic s with reference to what is learned, how it is learned, and the adjustments called for to enhance learning. These derive from the fact that any organization by definition is a collective entit y.

3.3 Organisational learning

The notion of one organisational can distinguish learning between has become very prominent. of

Generall y,

two

different

processes

organisational change that are associated with organisational learning (Senge, 1990):

Adaptive learning Proactive (generative) learning

Adaptive learnin g generall y signifies a lower degree of organisational change. This implies that adaptive learning is perceived as a process of

- 33 -

incremental alterations and changes. Furthermore, adaptive learning is also seen as more mechanical and less cognitivel y induced than proactive learning. Many authors have chosen to name differentl y what in this essay is described as proactive and adaptive learning. For example, Single -Loop versus Double- Loop Learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978), Lower versus Higher Level Learning (Fiol and Lyles, 1985), Tactical versus Strategic Learning (Dodgson, 1991), Adaptive versus Generative learning (Senge, 1990). All of them though acknowledge the superiorit y of proactive learning as compared to adaptive.

As Mark Easterby-Smith and Luis Araujo (1999) have commented the idea of organizational learning has been present in the management literature for decades, but it has onl y become widel y recognized since around 1990.

Two developments have been highl y significant in the development of the organisational learning literature. First, it has attracted the interest of academics from disparate disciplines that had up till then shown little interest in the subject of organisational learning. The second one is that many managers and organisa tions realised the commercial importance of organizational learning. Much of the effort of these theorists has been dedicated to identifying patterns, or ideal forms, which real organizations could attempt to imitate. (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999, pp. 1 -2)

- 34 -

One of the most the fundamental patterns or ideal forms in the 1990s was the notion of the learning organization . The literature on this subject could be divided into two main categ ories. The first one consists of theorists that emphasise on organisational learning as a technical process; while the second one of those that focuses on organisational learning as a social process.

According to Easterby-Smith and Araujo (1999, pp.3 -5), the technical approach highlights that organizational learning is about the effective processing, interpretation of, and response to, information both inside and outside the organization. This information may be quantitative or

qualitative, but is general l y explicit and in the public domain. The social approach on organization learning emphasises on the way individuals comprehend their experiences at workplace. These experiences ma y

emanate from explicit or tacit sources. Following this syllogism, learning is something that can originate from social interactions, usuall y in the working environment.

A technical approach of the organisational learning procedure can be retrieved from the writings of Argyris and Schon on single and double-loop learning (1978, 1996). On the other hand, Wenger (1998) provides a social approach to organisational learning. Those operating within the social perspective may view organizational learning as a social constructio n, as a

- 35 -

political process, and/or as a cultural artefact (Easterby -Smith and Araujo 1999, pp.5-7).

3.4 The learning organisation.

Peter Senge (1990) was one of the pioneers in the field of learni ng organisations. In his book entitled The Fifth discipline (1990) presented a holistic anal ysis of The art and practice of the learning organization. This book created the foundations on to which the notion of learning

organisation was developed and b ecame widel y known. Despite the great wealth of literature on the subject; the definition of what a learning organisation is; is still under debate. There is not a consensus on the definition of a learning organisation (Kerka, 1995). Ten years later after the Fifth Discipline Garvin (2000, p.9) underlines that a clear definition of learning organisation has proven to be elusive. Some selected definitions of learning organisations are presented below. According to Senge (1990, p.3)

Learning organization s are organizations where people continuall y expand their capacit y to create the results they trul y desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continuall y learning to see the whole together. - 36 -

Another definition of the learning company is proposed by Pedler et. al. (1991, p.1):

The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about simply by training individuals; it can onl y happen as a result of learning at the whole organization level. Learning Company is an organization that facilitates the learni ng of all its members and

continuousl y transforms itself.

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

Are characterized by total collaborativel y conducted,

employee involvement in a process of collectively accountable change directed

towards shared values or principles.

Those definitions have some similarities and some contrasts as well. To start with the last first, some writers (such as Pedler et. al., 1991) seem to approach learning organizations as a notion that is init iated, created and developed by senior management. In other words, they adopt a top to down approach (Hughes and Tight 1998, p. 183). On the other hand, a more bottom to top or democratic approach has been proposed by Watkins and Marsick (1992). Other wri ters have emphasised to the learning company

- 37 -

(Pedler et. al., 1991 . Most of them though have made the assumption that any t ype of organization can be a learning organization.

In addition to this, another key distinction has been developed between technical and social variants. This has its roots on the theoretical schemata of organisational learning (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999, p.8). The technical variant is based on techniques such as the learning curve (in which cost is plotted against the cumul ative output of a particular product). This approach though, is usuall y emphasising on outcomes and results rather than the processes of learning. On the other hand, the social approach of the learning organization looks to interaction and process. According to Kerka (1995) most theories on the learning organizations are based on the hypothesis that learning is valuable, continuous, and most effective when shared and that every experience is an opportunit y to learn. Also, some features seem to exist in the most dominant approaches. Learning organizations:

Provide continuous learning opportunities. Use learning to reach their goals. Link individual performance with organizational performance. Foster inquiry and dialogue, making it safe for people to share op enl y and take risks.

Embrace creative tension as a source of energy and renewal.

- 38 -

Are continuousl y aware of and interact with their environment. (Kerka 1995)

Peter Senge (1990) acknowledged five disciplines (personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning and systems thinking) that are considered to be the cornerstone for implementing the learning

organisation. Of great importance though are his thoughts on systemi c thinking and dialogue.

3.4.1 Systems thinking and the learning organization

Systemic thinking is the theoretical basis and cornerstone (The Fifth Discipline) of Peter Senges approach. It is the discipline that

amalgamates the others into a consistent theoretical and practical context. According to Senge (1990, pp.12 -13):

At the heart of a learning or ganization is a shift of mind from seeing ourselves as separate from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused by someone or something 'out there' to seeing how our own actions create the problems we experience. A learning organization is a place where people are continuall y discovering how they create their realit y. And how they can change it.

- 39 -

At this point some considerations and remarks on systems thinking need to be presented. S ystems thinking refer to (or should refer to) individuals, teams and groups, but also to the organisation as a whole; and attempts to unveil their interrelations. From this point of view, systems thinking provide the abilit y for individuals to conceive the wider organisat ional context and the organisation as a whole and to realise the consequences and results of their actions on others and vice versa. In addition to this, although systems thinking is a rather undemanding approach to implement; it can be applied in complex and advanced organisational structures. Third, s ystemic thinking, according to Senge (1990), allows us to realize the significance of feedback mechanisms in organizations. As he argues:

The systems viewpoint is generall y oriented toward the long -term view. Thats why delays and feedback loops are so important. In the short term, you can often ignore them; theyre inconsequential. They onl y come back to haunt you in the long term. (Senge 1990, p.92)

3.4.2 Dialogue and the learning organization

Another point the author would like to comment on as far as Peter Senges work on learning organisations is concerned is his emphasis on dialogue.

- 40 -

Dialogue is a word that derives from the Greek word and can be anal ysed into two synthetics (dia wh ich means through or via) and (logos which means with an account or with wisdom). Dialogue in ancient Greece meant that two or more people debated on an issue or subject, using empirical argumentations in a quest (or with a purpose) of an acc eptable by both parties solution ( l ysis ) that usuall y derives from a synthesis of opinions. Dialogue differs from conversation because it has a purpose (the quest of l ysis). As a

consequence dialogue can be defined as a process of synthesi zing opinions and arguments in the quest of a solution. In a rather more simplified approach, dialogue consists of a process of two people understanding each other. As such it is intrinsically risky and involves questioning our beliefs and assumptions (G adamer, 1979).

The main concern in a dialogue is not (or should not be) to prevail ones argument to anothers; but to advance our understanding and

comprehension on an issue and, in a wider context, our human well being. Agreement cannot be forced, but depends upon common assurance

(Habermas 1984, p.285 -287).

It is rather uncomplicated to comprehend the reason why theorists of learning organisations would focus on dialogue. For example, in Senges Fifth Discipline (1990) dialogue is a crucial part of t eam learning. As he

- 41 -

comments: team learning entails the capacit y of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine thinking together (1990, p.10). Dialogue is also necessary to other disciplines e.g. building a shared vision and developing mental models.

On the contrary, some important risks seem to exist as far as the process of dialogue in organisations is concerned. One risk, that also consist an appeal of Senges approach on dialogue, was the belief that it could enhance and improve corporate activit y. Although this is possible, through the

examination and inquiring of inherent, predetermined aims and targets (Bohm et. al. 1991); this approach could be characterised as too optimistic though dialogue is very subversive (Factor, 199 4).

Going over the main points of this chapter, a definition of the term learning was presented and then this notion was applied in the organisational context. In the following chapter a critical examination of the Hidding and Catterall (1998) learning organisation model is presented.

- 42 -

4. Presentation and analysis of the Hidding and Catterall learning organisation model.
Key Concepts: Anatomy of a learning organisation model, P&L Management/Knowledge Management, Organisational Environment, Open/Closed Systems, Partially Open/Partially Closed Systems, Knowledge Coordinating Mechanisms, Information Technology.

In this chapter of this study the learning organisation model developed by Hidding and Catterall in their article anatom y of a learning organisa tion is presented and then is criticall y analysed; focusing mainl y into the abnormalities and anomalies of this model. The reason for selecting this model is rather uncomplicated. This model is an empirical, and as so closer to realit y, attempt to approac h the concept of learning organisations; in contradiction with other models that follow a more theoretical approach.

4.1 Anatomy of a learning organisation.

Hidding and Catterall in their article Anatom y of a Learning Organization: Turning Knowledge into Capital at Andersen Consulting (1998) anal yse a learning organisation model. The authors tried to relate three t ypes of knowledge (Formalised, Emerging and Experiential) with the major parts of the organisational structure. Project teams relate mostl y to experiential knowledge, organization wide methods groups relate mostl y to formalized - 43 -

knowledge.

Communities

of

Practice

relate

to

emerging knowledge.

Knowledge Nodes relate to two t ypes of knowledge as they provide emerging and formalized knowledge to project teams.

Fi g ur e 4 : An a to m y o f a lear n i n g o r ga n i sat io n So ur ce : Hid d i n g a nd C at tera ll, 1 9 9 8 p . 1 2

Figure 5 is similar to a fishnet organization as described by Johansen and Swigart (1994) or spiders web organization as described by Quinn (1992). However, the anatomy of a learning organisation model has two distinctive characteristics when compared with the two above mentioned models. First, the anatom y of a learning organisation embodies a multi - layered spiders web, with the layers t ypes of knowledge - being qualitativel y different.

Second, in the Hidding and Catterall model a distinction is made among the Profit and Loss management (P&L) and kno wledge management. According to the authors this distinction was made because Profit and Loss

Management and knowledge management have objectives that need to be - 44 -

balanced against each other (Hidding and Catterall, 1998 p.12). This is owing to the fact th at knowledge management is related to developing knowledge assets; while profit and loss managements main concern is to exploit the organisational assets. Both are necessary, but in a relative balance. Spending time and resources in order to grow knowledg e assets reduces financial gain in the short term, but builds more assets that can be exploited over the longer term. The authors conclude that both methods of management are essential, but in a relative balance (Hidding and Catterall, 1998 p.12).

4.2 Anatomy of a Learning Organisation?

The learning organisation model proposed by Hidding and Catterall (1996) is incontestabl y a useful tool in analysing learning organisations (see chapter 3.5). It could though be characterised as incomplete as it negle cts or downgrades the role of the organisational environment and how this environment affects the flow of knowledge towards the organisation and the flow of knowledge from the organisation to the environment.

At this point a brief reference to what orga nisational environment consists of is crucial. Organisational environment can be defined as the environment into which an organisation operates, - the market, the econom y, the technology and the legislative and regulatory climate (Field and Keller,

- 45 -

1998). As it can be easil y understood, a change or alteration in the environment of the organisation could possibl y affect the functionalit y or even the sustainabilit y of an organisation. In the learning organisation context, environment is the main source of inf ormation gathering trough various procedures, like feedback, research or market anal ysis. As a consequence, environment should be a fundamental part in an learning organisation anal ysis.

To take the discussion about organisational environment a little bi t further, we can argue that it was not specified by the authors if a learning organisation is an open or a closed system. An open system is the one that permits information to enter and leave the system and can therefore be changed and affected by such in formation. A closed system is one that does not allow any new information into the system at all (Blackman and Henderson, 2001). Hidding and Catterall seem to prefer that an organisation is a closed system as far as knowledge flow towards and from the environment is concerned; owing to the fact that the onl y connection that they highlight between learning organisation and its environment is control flow from what they define as Global Management (See Figure 4). In practice though, it seems unlikel y that an organisational system is entirel y closed but it is possible that there may be stages between wholl y open and wholl y closed organisations.

- 46 -

Although to be a partiall y open or partiall y closed system seems rather irrational there are not few writers that argue in favour of this concept (Von Krogh and Ross, 1995; Magalhaes, 1998; Morgan, 1986; Weick, 1995). This concept implies that organisation s develop filters in order to decide which ideas and areas of information will enter or leave the organisation. Those filters are formed according to the targets and the aims of an organisation in combination with the culture, organisational history and status and quality standards. For example, Rolls -Royce, a high standard and qualit y automobile manufacturer would rarel y or in no case consider of using low qualit y raw materials for their cars (like artificial leather substitutes instead of real leather for the seats) or build a small car to enter a new market.

One of the most important issues in a learning organisation is the coordination and management of knowledge flows. The Hidding and Catterall learning organisation model does not specify how all this knowledge will be co -ordinated in an organisational context. Although the writers separated knowledge management from profit and loss management; they did not submit clear evidence on knowledge co -ordinating

mechanisms.

Organisations not onl y nee d to process information but it is vital and crucial to organise, harmonise and coordinate data, information and

- 47 -

knowledge. One of the most fundamental aspects of knowledge management (See chapter 2.7) and management in general is to implement procedures and mechanisms in order to coordinate knowledge. In practice,

organisations use a variet y of integrating mechanisms to achieve knowledge coordination. Five different methods of achieving coordination have been identified. Direct Supervision Standardisation of Information Process Standardisation of Outputs Standardisation of Input Data and Information and Mutual Adjustment (Mintzberg, 1989).

They vary along a continuum of how much discretion is allowed for the employees (See figure 5 ).

low

Level of discretion

high

Direct Supervision

Standardisation of Outputs

Mutual Adjustment

Standardisation of Information Process

Standardisation of Input Data and Information

Figure 5: coordinating mechanisms based on level of discretion. Source: Mintzber g, 1989

- 48 -

Direct

supervision:

When

this

t ype

of

coordinating

mechanism

is

implemented, knowledge flow is coordinated by designated supervisors who tell subordinates what to do and how to utilise knowledge.

Standardisation of Information Process:

This mechanism applies mainl y

for data and information that are embedded to the structure of the learning organisation and so considered to be common sense for the employees. Those data can be managed by standard operating procedures or the technology itself.

Standardisation of outputs: When products and services must be produced according to technical specifications, these can be used as an adequate basis for co -ordinating knowledge flow. Individuals are allowed some discretion in managing knowledge as long as the output meets the requi red specifications.

Standardisation of Input Data and Information: Highl y trained and skilled employees can t ypicall y coordinate data and information flow by

performing activities consistent with their technical training.

Mutual adjustment: of informal

Mutual adjustment consists of a constant interchange Individuals coordinate knowledge flow

communications.

through informal processes and mutually adjusting to one anothers needs.

- 49 -

Employees communicate with whomever they need to communicate with; without a great level of regard for formal lines of communication.

Another issue that Hidding and Catterall did not develop in a great degree is the one of the role of information technology into learning organisations. There is a continuous dispute and debate around the purpose and significance of information technology for knowledge management and management in general . On the one hand , information technology solutions are being utilised pervasivel y in organizations, and consequentl y they are considered to be an important medium for knowledge flow within

organisations and among organisations and their environment . A study from the American Productivit y and Qualit y Center (1997) unveils that

organizations

embarking in knowledge management

efforts

generall y

depend upon, for fulfilling their goals and objectives, on the development of an appropriate IT infrastructure (AP&QC, 1997). In contradiction to this approach to information technology, prominent knowledge management theorists have highlighted the danger that un derlies in the trend of strong investments in information technology; that could result in decreases in other investment areas like human capital. (Sveiby, 1997).

The

danger

that

this

viewpoint

sees

is

that

IT -driven

knowledge

management strategies may e nd up objectifying and calcifyi ng knowledge

- 50 -

into static, non-dynamic information and as a consequence disregarding altogether the role of tacit knowledge.

Part of this problem emanates from a linguistic ambiguit y: contemporary information technology solu tions are as much about developing direct links among people through application s like e-mail, chat-rooms, internetconferencing and other t ypes of individual and team communication s ystems; as they are about storing information in databases and other t ype s of repositories. As for information databases, they can also be fruitfull y re thought, in a knowledge management perspective, as resources for the sharing of best practices and for preserving the intellectual capital of organizations.

In a more general context, investments in information technology are rather unavoidable in order to expand knowledge management applications and methods. Application of information technology solutions to a learning organisation context, though, should be developed in acco rdance with some principles and rules. On the one hand , the awareness of the limits of information technology, and of the fact that any IT deployment will not achieve much, if it is not accompanied by a cultural change toward knowledge and learning values . On the other hand, we should take under consideration the level and qualit y of the available information technology

- 51 -

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

To s ynopsise, this chapter highlighted that although the anatom y of a learning organisation is a useful tool in anal ysing organisations of this type; in practice seems to be an over -simplistic model owing to the fact that it neglects to refer to fundamen tal issues of learning organisations; as the relation that exists among the learning organisation and its environment, how the knowledge is filtrated and the role of the IT infrastructure in an organisational structure of this kind. The following chapter c ould be characterised as a respond to these issues as it consists of a proposal for the development of an e - learning organisations.

- 52 -

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

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

In the following sections of this chapter the development of an e -learning organisation model takes place. Firstl y, the relation between the learning organisation and the information technology and the importance of IT in a learning organisation environment is examined. In order to enhance this relation some IT mechanisms and solutions are also presented. The chapter concludes with the development of the e - learning organisation.

5.1 Learning organisations and information technology.

Information technology support of knowledge activities and learning projects not a newborn issue. In the 1970s there was a proliferation of expert systems, and a sharp interest in artificial intelligence. At that time, it was suggested that those systems might fundamentall y modernize

- 53 -

knowledge activities within organisations. The realit y, as we know in hindsight, is that those systems failed to fulfil the purposes they were invented for. The information systems of that decade (197 0s) could process onl y a narrow range of simplistic issues , they required extensive knowledge elicitation and high level of specialisation in order to use them and on top of all this criticism, they were characterised as unsuccessful owing to their high cost of purchase and maintenance and their failure to interpret and comprehend the fundamentals of the human though process. This era is best attributed as the one where we attempted to make computers think, rather than utilising them to assist individuals t o think. Today, after years of steady advancement, information technology solutions are being widel y implemented in a variet y of organisational processes.

The importance and effect of information technology solutions varies extremel y among organisation an d even in different departments of the same organisation . Their success still depends upon the way individuals will utilise them; owing to the fact artificial intelligence solutions for organisations are still in embryonic stage. Several information technology solutions were implemented in an organisational concept mainl y because they are nowadays affordable to implement and maintain; but also because they are generic and pervade many organisational processes.

- 54 -

5.2 Information technology solutions

This chapter aims to present the most crucial IT based tools for the development of an e -learning organisation; in an attempt to provide evidence that the technology that is required for the development of an e learning organisation already exi sts and in some cases is already in use by contemporary learning organisations. For example, corporations like VTN Technologies INC (www.vtn-tech.com/default.asp ) have created a and Intelladon online

(www.intelladon.com/home. asp)

sophisticated

learning environment suite and provide e -learning solutions to a wide variet y of customers.

5.2.1 Intranet and Internet

Internet protocols provide users the ability to access any information, any where, at any time. Browsers and client software can act as front -ends to information in many formats and many of the other knowledge tools such as document management or decision support. This in synthesis with emails , discussion lists and newsgroups and video conferenc es create a useful IT solution for organisations.

- 55 -

Many organisations decide nowadays to go online or even to exist onl y online like the Knowledge Online organisation. This is an online organisation (see www.knowledgeon -line.co.uk) that provides via a secure intranet connection a wealth of information to their consultants and customers world-wide. Through active information management by

knowledge editors the information remains well structured and relevant. The creation of an online organisation could be interpreted as a worldwide clientele without the added costs of creating branches on a universal scale.

5.2.2 Groupware - Lotus Notes

Groupware solutions like Lotus Notes create to the above mentioned IT solution of internet/intranet the capability to create discussion databases. Employees have the abilit y to access their organizational memory , as well as current news and developments in areas of interest, through one of Lotu ss fundamental features, its multiple views .

5.2.3 Intelligent Agents

Information overload is becoming nowadays a severe problematic situation for many organisations and their employees . Intelligent agents can

programmed to search n etworks, databases and the internet and to select

- 56 -

and alert employees of new relevant informat ion. In addition to this they can be used as an information filtering solution, owing to the fact that they can be programmed to filter data and information and discard the irrelevant parts. Intelligent agents can be defined as a sophisticated form of a se arch engine like Google (www.google.com ). They operate through a process of programming them by inserting keywords. In addition to this, they can be programmed to alert the user usually via emailfor new online

publications on a selected field.

An example of an intelligent agent is the Saba Talent Suit ( www.saba.com ). It provides organizations with the abilit y to track and manage talent development processes across the organization. It not onl y allows to develop and nurture leaders within the organization, but to reduce organizational risk through succession planning and management. Saba Talent Suite has the abilit y to engage in both top - down planning to fill critical roles as well as bottom - up planning to maximize investment in top performers.

5.2.4 Mapping Tools

There are an increasing number of tools, such as COPE and IDONS, that help individuals and t eams develop cognitive maps or shared mental

- 57 -

models. These have been used by companies such as Shell to develop future scenarios and resolve conflicting stakeholder requirements. In addition, other mapping tools, such as those found in Knowledge X, can represent conceptual linkages between different source documents (Skyrme, 1998 p.4).

5.2.5 Document Management

Documents, and especiall y structured documents, are the form in which much explicit knowledge is shared. With marginal note and highlighting facilities, they can become active knowledge repositories, where the latest version and thinking is readil y shared amongst employees and teams .

By using a document management system for the development of the Thelma North Sea oil platform, AGIP reduced construction time by 9 months and reduced document handling costs by 60 per cent (Skyrme, 1998, p.4). Suppliers like Dataware are repositioning their products as knowledge management products and are also adding knowledge enriching functionality (Skyrme, 1998, p.4).

- 58 -

5.2.6 Knowledge Enriched Solutions

With a rapidl y increasing and profitable market for knowledge management solutions, many companies are simpl y re -labelling their products and approaches e.g. information management as knowledge management,

databases as knowledge bases, data warehouses as knowledge rep ositories. However, t rue knowledge management solutions are not simply new labels, but add knowledge-enriching features. These include (Skyrme, 1998, p.5): Adding contextual information to data Using multimedia Providing annotation - adding informal notes to individual data items; using MAP I enabled software, where a document or file can be sent with a forwarding note by email Qualifying information: G iving details of originator, users adding comments about the qualit y of information Providing links to exp erts: An online link to contact an expert (either by email or phone). GIGA, for example, lets its client access global experts through its web site (http://www.gigaweb.com).

5.2.7 Information filtering via IT

At this section of this study a connection is attempted among information filtering procedures and Information Technology infrastructures. For doing so, two articles are criticall y presented and anal ysed. The first is entitled - 59 -

P rofiling with the informer text filtering agent , by Sorensen et al. (1997 ) and the second A framework for filtering news and managing distributed data , by Amati et al. (1997). Both papers anal yse dissimilar concepts for information filtering. At this point it is crucial to comment that in formation filtering has become a crucial t ype of IT support for learning organisations of the knowledge era, which in their every routine are dealing with ever increasing amounts of information, both from internal and external to the organisation sources .

To start with the paper written by Sorensen et al. (1997) first; it presents an intelligent filtering system where individuals have profiles that correspond to long-term interests; that are used to measure the relevance of

information. These profiles can subsequentl y be used to bring togeth er enquiries into graphical representations that unveil the essence of the query with respect to the given profile. In case the query is very unambiguous, and contains a lot of related words, then this system will provide us with answers related to our int erests. Furthermore, profiles can be dynamicall y updated through user relevance assessments. Thus, this system provides information filtering capabilities that can be flexibl y adapted to the context and the needs of specific categories of knowledge workers (Borghoff, 1997).

- 60 -

The study by Amati et al. (1997) counterbalances the one by Sorensen et al. (1997) by anal ysing the way that user profiling can be effectivel y amalgamated with less expensive and more conventional information retrieval techniques. This concept proposes adaptive data filtering

capabilities that can respond to simplified inquiries with more precision than other non-adaptive information filtering systems (Borghoff, 1997) . In addition to this, Amati et al. (1997) also present a method of mechanisation of the information search procedure through an intelligent agent system that forces memory-based reasoning techniques to select relevant information sources and make suggestions for relevant action. These agents are able to programme and coordinate their actions by direct observation of users behaviours (Borghoff, 1997) .

5.3 From learning to e-learning organisations.

This chapter deals with the development of the e - learning organisation model for learning organisations. The prefix e signifies the importance of the information technology into the learning organisation context. As it was commented above (see chapters 4.2, 5.1 and 5.2) information technology is (or should be) one of the most fundamental parts of the learning organisation structure. This statement has no intention to underestimate the importance of the human factor in the learning organisation context. On the contrary, the author is of the opinion that humans are the key core competency of a learning organisatio n; but on the other hand, information

- 61 -

technology solutions once implemented provide a strategic advantage. For this purpose, a balance should be kept among information technology solutions and the human factor in the context of the e -learning

organisation.

The author also chose to implement a more democratic approach than the Hidding and Catterall model as far as the t ypes of knowledge are concerned. In the e -learning organisation model (see Figure 5) the three types of knowledge exist at the same level and not in a pyramidal format. This modification took place because pyramidal shape graphical

representations tend to be associated with hierarchical structures.

For reasons of simplification some of the Hidding and Catterall model aspects (for example knowledge engineering) are not represented

graphicall y. This in no way implies that those aspects are less important or fundamental, but as it was already mentioned they were left out in order to simplify the diagram.

In the following lines an anal ysis of the e-learning organisation model takes place; starting from the left side of Figure 6 and move towards the right. Organisational environment, as it was mentioned before in this study (p. 49) can be defined as the environment into which an organisation operates, - the market, the econom y, the technology and the legislative and

- 62 -

regulatory climate. Factors like government, market, competitors and technology affect the knowledge flows towards and from the e -learning organisation. For example, a new regulat ion implemented by the

government -like the implementation of the qualit y standards ISO 9002 in the beginning of the 1990s - created the need for new knowledge on qualit y standards by the organisations; which replied with the implementation of new technolog y and new forms of production based on this regulation.

Also, a new product invented by competitor organisations that create a new market or enhancing the share of the market for the competitor organisation might result in other organisations to follow by buying the pattern from the inventors or create a similar product. For example, the invention of four wheel drive system for cars by AUDI car manufactures in the late 70s and its great success in the market was followed by other car manufactures that created four wheel drive cars.

Figure 6 : The e-learning organisation model.

- 63 -

The

amount

of

knowledge

that

an

organisation

receives

from

its

environment is colossal and mechanisms are required to filter this knowledge (see above information filtering via IT, pp. 62 -64) and decide which part of it should be further be processed by the organisation and which part should be discarded. Knowledge filtering is a perpetual process that transpires not onl y when data and information are entering the organisation; but also when information and knowledge are being processed internall y by the organisation. Knowledge filtering in the e -learning organisation takes place with assistance from information technology infrastructure. More specificall y, a simplified exampl e of IT support for information filtering might be the search engines that can be accessed via the World Wide Web. Search engines, for example Google

(www.google.com ), can provide a low level information filtering. For a higher level of information filtering knowledge workers are using more sophisticated tools, like the ones proposed by Amati(1997) and Sorensen (1997) and presented in section 5.2.7 of this study.

Another procedure that relates to knowledge filtering , and occurs rather as a consequence of this procedure, is knowledge discard. This is a vital procedure for organisations. Nowadays, employees in learning

organisations are faced with even increasing amounts of information, both from sources internal to the organization and from external sources such as the Internet and the World Wide Web. So, the implementation of knowledge

- 64 -

discard mechanisms, with the assistance of IT (see above pp. 62 -64), is critical. A point that the writer would like to underline is that knowledge discard could take place not onl y for inf ormation and data that entering the organisation but also for knowledge aspects internal to the organisation (see figure 6). During the implementation of this procedure, decisions are made in relevance to what information that is useful and can be utilised to serve the purposes and aims of the organisation and information that is not considered to be relevant with the culture and the purposes of the organisation and for this reason it should be discarded.

What and how information can be attributed as usef ul or discardable could be the subject of a big debate; that is beyond the purposes of this study. The author could briefl y comment that it depends upon the culture, the history, the purposes, and the degree of maturit y and qualit y of the knowledge filt ering systems that an organisation are utilising. An

additional comment on this issue is that knowledge filtering is a risky process; from the point of view that information that currentl y are characterised as non -useful might in the future prove to be ver y semantic. For example, the majorit y of people are of the opinion that cloning is unethical and should be forbidden. In the future though, cloning might become a way to treat fatal diseases like cancer and human immunodeficiency virus.

- 65 -

Returning to our debate around knowledge discard some reason for this procedure will be presented. One might be the implementation of newl y conceptualised procedures that are more sophisticated that the pre -existing ones. In addition to this and in an attempt to link the a bove mentioned procedures with the profit and loss management organisational concept ; knowledge discard might occur when the utilisation of new knowledge or information is characterised as cost inefficient for the organisation. For example, the implementat ion of a new production line with sophisticated machinery might be desirable but it might also not be cost efficient and for this reason it must be abandoned.

During this process of knowledge engineering in the organisational context; core competencies are developed that assist into the invention of new products or the advancement of the existing ones. As a result, this knowledge returns in the environment of the organisation, (usuall y in the market) in the form of products and services. This procedure is

acknowledged as knowledge output (see figure 6). In other words, organisations return the engineered knowledge in their environment in the form of more sophisticated products or services; fulfilling in this way their (main?) purpose; that is to produce cu tting edge products or services.

The process of knowledge output also signifies and represents the last part of this circular interaction and interrelation among the organisational and

- 66 -

organisational environment flow of knowledge. This circular process can easil y be comprehended and interpreted if we criticall y observe Figure 6.

- 67 -

6. Conclusion.
This paper was an attempt to develop a hybrid model of learning organisation; the e -learning organisation. In order to do so, the author first anal ysed the existing theoretical framework surrounding the concept of the learning organisation (chapters 2 and 3) and then presented and cr iticised one of the most prominent models of learning organisations; the anatom y of a learning organisation model (Chapter 4); with the intention to unveil and highlight the main limitations and imperfections of this model. As it was extensivel y presente d in section 4.2 the Achilles heel of this model could be synopsised in two main points. First, it does not take under consideration the flow of knowledge, information and data from the environment towards the organisation and vice versa. In other words, Hidding and Catterall treat the concept of learning organisations as closed s ystem. Second, it neglects to determine the role of information technology in the context of a learning organisation. The proposal of the e -learning organisation aims towards the minimisation of those limitations . In doing so, it acknowledges the e -learning organisation as a partiall y -open system and highlights the role of information technology in an organisation of this type.

- 68 -

7. References.
Amati, G., D'Aloisi, D., Giannini, V., & Ubaldini F., (1997). A Framework for Filtering News and Managing Distributed Data. Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 3 (8), pp. 1007-1021. American Productivity and Quality Center, (1996). Knowledge Management. Consortium Benchmarking Study. Houston: American Productivity and Quality Center.

American Productivity and Quality Center, (1997). Using Information Technology to Support Knowledge Management. Consortium Benchmarking Study: Final Report. Applebaurn, S.H., & Gorans, L., (1997). Transformational and Adaptive within the Learning Organization: A Framework for Research and Application. The Learning Organization 4 (3) pp 115- 128. Argyris, C., & Schon, D., (1978). Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Argyris, C., & Schon, D., (1996). Organisational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Baker, K. A., & Badamshina, G. M., (2002). Chapter 5 - Knowledge Management. Retrieved March 23rd 2005 from: http://www.science. doe.gov/sc5/benchmark/Ch%205%20Knowledge%20Management%2006. 10.02.pdf Bannock, G., Baxter, R.E., and Davis E., (2003). The Penguin Dictionary of Economics. Seventh Edition. London: Penguin. Blackman, D. and Henderson, S. (2001). Does a learning organization facilitate knowledge acquisition and transfer?. Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory, Vol. 7(1).

- 69 -

Bohm, D., Factor, D., & Garrett, P., (1991). Dialogue: A Proposal. Retrieved April 11th 2005 from: www. infed.org /arc hives/e-texts/bohm_dialogue.htm Borghoff, U., M., (1997). Information Technology for Knowledge Management. Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 3 (8), pp. 835-842.

Cliffe, S., (1998). Knowledge Management: The Well-Connected Business. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 (4), pp. 17-21.

Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y., (1993). A Cultural-Historical Approach to Distributed Cognition In: Salomon, G., (Ed.). Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-46. Davenport, T. H., Long, D. W. D., & Beers, M. C., (1998a). Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39(2). Davenport T., Prusak L., (1998b). Working Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dodgson, M., (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, Vol.14 (3), pp. 375-394 Drucker, P. F., (1988). The Coming of the New Organization. Harvard Business Review, (January-February), pp. 45-53. Drucker, P. F., (1993). The Rise of the Knowledge Society. The Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 17(2), pp. 52-71. Easterby-Smith, M., & Araujo, L., (1999) Current Debates and Opportunities In: Easterby-Smith, M., Araujo, L., & Burgoyne, J., (Eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage.

- 70 -

Factor, D., (1994). On Facilitation and Purpose. Retrieved April 14th 2005 from: http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/facilitation_purpose.html Field, M. & Keller L., (1998). Project Management. London: The Open University.

Fiol, C.M., & Lyles, M.A., (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 (4), pp. 803-813. Gadamer, H. G., (1979). Truth and Method. London: Sheed and Ward. Gallon M., Stillman H. M., and Coates D., (1995). Putting Core Competency Thinking Into Practice. Research Technology Management, Vol. 38 (3), May/June 1995, pp. 20-29. Garvin, D. A., (2000). Learning in Action. A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to work. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Grenier, R., & Metes, G., (1995). Going Virtual: Moving your Organization into the 21st Century. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall. Hamel G., (2000). Leading the Revolution. Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K., (1994). Competing for the Future. Boston: Harvard Bussiness School Press. Retrieved April 11th from: www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug04/eb6.asp Hidding , G. J., & Catterall, S. M., (1998). Anatomy of a Learning Organisation: Turning knowledge into capital at Andersen consulting. Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 5 (1), pp. 3-13. Hughes, C., &Tight, M., (1998). The Myth of the Learning Society In: Ranson, S., (ed.) Inside the Learning Society. London: Cassell.

- 71 -

Johansen, R., & Swigart, R., (1994). Upsizing the Individual in a Downsized Organization. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Kerka, S. (1995). The Learning Organization: Myths and Realities. Retrieved April 21st 2005 from: http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=archive&ID= A0 28. King, W.R., & Malhotra, Y., (2000). Developing a Framework for Analyzing IS Sourcing, Information & Management. The International Journal of Information Systems Applications, Vol. 37, pp. 323-334. Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R., (1975). Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning In: Cooper, C., (Ed.), (1975). Theories of Group Process. London: John Wiley.

Machlup, F., (1984). Semantic Quirks in Studies of Information. In: Machlup, F., & Mansfield, U., (1984). The Study of Information: Interdisciplinary Messages. New York: Wiley, pp. 641-671. Magalhaes, R., (1998). Organizational Knowledge and Learning. In: Von Krogh, G., Roos , J., & Kleine, D., (1998). Knowing in Firms. London: Sage. Malhotra, Y., (2000). From Information Management to Knowledge Management. In: Sirkantaiah, K., & Koening, M. E. D., (Eds.) Knowledge Management for the Informational Professional. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. Mintzberg, H., (1989). Mintzberg on Management. Inside our Strange World of Organisations. London: Free Press. Morgan, G., (1986). Images of Organization. London: Sage.

Nonaka, I., & Takaeuchi, K., (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company. How Japanise Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.

- 72 -

Pea, R. D., (1993) Practices of Distributed Intelligence and Designs for Education In: Salomon, G., (ed.), (1993) Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-87. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T., (1991). The Learning Company. A strategy for sustainable development. London: McGraw-Hill. Prange, C., (1999). Organizational learning desperately seeking theory?. In: EasterbySmith, M., Araujo, L., & Burgoyne, J., (eds.), (1999). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization. London: Sage. Quinn, J.B., (1992) Intelligent Enterprise. New York: The Free Press. Rothschild, M., (1990). Bionomics: Economy as Ecosystem. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G., (1997) "Knowledge Management: a Strategic Agenda". Long Range Planning vol. 30(3) pp. 385-391. Romer, P.M., (1992). Two Strategies for Economic Development: using ideas and producing ideas. In: Summers, L.H., & Shekhar, S., (Eds.), (1992). Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics 1992: Supplement to the World Bank Research Observer. Salomon, G., (1993). No Distribution without Individuals Cognition: A Dynamic Interactional View In: Salomon, G., (Ed.), (1993). Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 111-138. Salomon, G. and Perkins, D. N., (1998). Individual and Social Aspects of Learning. Review of Research in Education,Vol 23. Retrieved April 27th 2005 from: http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~gsalomon/indsoc.htm. Sampson, E. E., (1993). Celebrating the Other. A Dialogic Account of Human Nature. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.

- 73 -

Savage, C. M., (1996). Fifth Generation Management: Co-Creating through Virtual Enterprising, Dynamic Teaming and Knowledge Networking. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Senge, P., (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Random House. Skyrme, D., (1998). Knowledge Management Solutions. The IT Contribution. David Skyrme Associates Limites. Retrieved April 22nd 2005 from: www.skyrme.com. Snowden, D., (2000). Conference Proceedings. 2nd Annual Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning Conference. London: Linkage International. Sorensen, H., O' Riordan, A., & O'Riordan, C., (1997). Profiling with the informer text filtering agent. Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 3 (8), pp.988-1006.

Stata, R., (1989). "Organizational Learning: The Key to Management Innovation". Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 63-74 Stewart, T. A., (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Stewart. J, (1991). Towards a Model of Learning. Training and Development, October 1991. Sveiby, K. E., (1997). The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers. Sydanmaanlakka, P., (2000). Understanding Organizational Learning through Knowledge Management, Competence Management, and Performance Management. Conference Proceedings. 2nd Annual Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning Conference. London: Linkage International pp. 329-341.

- 74 -

Tampoe, M., (1994). Exploiting the Core Competences of Your Organization. Long Range Planning, Vol. 27 (4), pp. 66-77. Von Krogh, G., & Roos, J., (1995). Organizational Epistemology. London: Macmillan. Von Krogh, G., Roos, J., & Kleine, D., (Eds.). (1999). Knowing in Firms: Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Watkins, K., and Marsick, V., (1992). Building the Learning Organization: A New Role for Human Resources Developers. Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 14 (2), pp. 115-129. Weick, K.E., (1995). Sense-Making in Organizations. Thousands Oaks: Sage.

Wenger, E., (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning as a social system. Retrieved April 26th 2005 from: http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledgegarden/cop/lss.shtml. Wiig, K., (1994).Knowledge Management: The Central Focus for Intelligent Acting Organizations. Schema Press.

- 75 -