ICELW 2008
Strategic E-Learning in the Workplace
R. Pircher1, E. Mayr2, L. Zenk2 and H. Risku2
1
University of Applied Sciences bfi Vienna, Vienna, Austria
2 Department for Knowledge and Communication Management, Danube University Krems, Austria
Abstract—Empirical research suggests that there is an
impact of organizational characteristics on individual work-
related learning processes. In this paper, we propose a
model of relevant organizational factors. An assessment
methodology based on a literature survey and activity
theory is summarized. First results of an empirical
validation are presented with an emphasis on prerequisites
for e-learning.
Index Terms—didactics, e-learning, individual learning,
knowledge management, learning design, organizational
learning, work-related learning
I. INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Individual and organizational learning in the workplace
are interconnected processes [1] [2]. They influence each
other substantially and are difficult to differentiate. This
paper develops an approach designed to assess the
organizational environment with respect to both learning
processes. The emphasis lies on prerequisites and success
factors for e-learning. On the basis of the assessment
results, decision support for instructional designers and
managers is provided. This assessment methodology and
decision support are empirically evaluated in different
organizations, for example from the health care and
telecom sector.
A. Research Approaches to Learning in Organizations
A number of different scientific disciplines occupy
themselves with the topics of learning and knowledge
exchange in organizations. The fields of Human Resource
Development (HRD), Training, and Workplace Learning
focus primarily on individual learning and aim at
improving job performance. In contrast, the fields of
Organizational Learning (OL) and Knowledge
Management (KM) concentrate not on individual, but on
organizational learning. Their main interest lies in the
understanding and management of the collective
capabilities of organizations enabled by organizational
learning and knowledge. However, this is, in turn, also
based on the systemic interaction and integration of
individual learning and human resource capabilities.
Consequently, although these two different (and
extensive) areas of applied research are relatively distinct,
they both nonetheless deal with topics which are strongly
linked.
Placing the focus on the role of the organizational
context in both fields raises the following research
questions: In HRD [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], organizational
factors should be identified which systematically
influence the outcomes of individual learning. In OL/KM
[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] the question of whether the
outcomes of work-related learning and knowledge sharing
in organizations can be improved by an assessment and
The International Conference on E-Learning in the Workplace 2008, www.icelw.org
June 12-13, New York, NY, USA
intervention in the organizational context of learning
should be addressed. These questions were explored by
means of an extensive literature review.
B. The Impact of Organizational Characteristics on
Individual Learning
Since the late 80s, literature has become available
which recognizes not only the impact of the individual
but also the impact of the organization on individual
learning processes and/or training success. Several
authors in the HRD field highlight the significance of the
organizational context for learning outcomes and
motivation [4] [15]. Other publications analyze
organizational factors affecting work-related learning [3]
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
To study the transfer of knowledge and capabilities in
organizations, one must first clarify the nature of such
knowledge and capabilities. From a mechanistic point of
view, they can be regarded as easily transferable
commodities. However, research findings suggest that the
use of data and information in organizations depends on
the subjective interpretation of those individuals and
groups who transform this input into actions and
performance. Particular emphasis is given to this aspect
in situated approaches to knowledge and learning [16].
Within the situated approach it has been proposed that
companies must seek to influence and support knowledge
management capabilities in several different areas (e.g.,
leadership and company culture) by deploying and
integrating available methods, instruments and
technologies to provide a beneficial environment for the
use and creation of knowledge and competencies. In
doing so, organizations must also actively encourage and
support participation 0. Since individuals can be seen as
operating both independently and interdependently, their
socially-derived personal history, values, and ways of
knowing mediate the way they participate and learn in the
workplace. They need to find meaning and value in the
learning activities offered. Inconsistencies between
organizational and individual values may lead to
resistance. Different skills, abilities, and ways of
motivating employees to participate are required, for
example, to attract the interest of and motivate reluctant
employees. Opportunities to participate and receive
support are essential for rich learning outcomes [15].
Approaches like situated learning emphasize the
social context of learning processes and regard
knowledge as socially constructed [16]. Working as such
is recognized as a source of learning. Informal learning
does not occur in the absence of actions like formal
training but in the presence of both action and reflection.
1
ICELW 2008
Consequently, a shift from training to learning can be
observed in the field of HRD [17]: “Learning
arrangements closely linked to the workplace are at the
center of attention, for example, mentoring, self-study,
learning-by-doing, intercollegiate consultation, special
work assignments, reflection-in-action, work-related
learning projects, coaching, and work experiments” [18]
quoted in [17].
An organization’s potential to provide a supportive
learning environment depends very much on the way
work is organized and on the work processes [19] p. 160.
Consequently, the complete working and learning context
must be analyzed: “if we are to further our understanding
of the process of workplace learning then we must move
beyond a narrow focus on the process of interaction in the
immediate workplace that has characterized recent
research” [19], p. 160.
II. MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL DIMENSIONS
On the basis of the literature review, a Model of
Organizational Dimensions (MOD) is proposed, which
consists of factors that have major impact on process-
oriented learning and knowledge transfer. The model
aims to integrate three different research approaches to
learning within organizations: HRD, OL/KM, and
Activity Theory.
The success of instruments and methods aimed at
fostering organizational learning and the development of
an organizational knowledge base is influenced by both
the characteristics of the organization in question and the
habits of its employees. Within the OL/KM discourse, a
variety of structuring frameworks have been developed
and several models and assessment methods proposed
which are relevant for the analysis of organizations [20]
[21].
Knowledge transfer constitutes a very important
objective of OL/KM. For this reason, these two
approaches were both regarded relevant for the definition
and outcomes of a learning assessment guideline (LAG)
based on the proposed MOD. A number of different
OL/KM models were also used in the development of the
MOD.
Activity theory focuses on the interaction between
human activity and consciousness within the relevant
environmental context. It provides a framework for
analyzing learning needs, tasks and outcomes within
organizations. The socio-cultural, socio-historical lens of
activity theory helps managers and learning designers to
analyze human activity systems. One fundamental
assumption in this approach is the notion that conscious
learning emerges from, not prior to, activity [22].
The International Conference on E-Learning in the Workplace 2008, www.icelw.org
June 12-13, New York, NY, USA
Data, ICT,
Information
Tools
Processes
Relevant Production
Subject Object Outcome
Characteristics of
Target Groups, HRM
Strategy,
Controlling
Division of
Rules labour
Community
Organisational Work Design,
Culture,
Leade rship
Office Architecture
Figure 1. Model of the organizational dimensions relevant for learning
and knowledge transfer within an activity system (MOD) (adaptation of
[23], p. 135)
As shown in Fig. 1, an activity system can be
visualized in the shape of a triangle [23], p. 135. Based
on the relevant literature mentioned above, organizational
factors relevant for learning and knowledge transfer have
been identified and are pictured in the rectangles in Fig. 1
(see also [24]). The dimensions of activity theory
(subject, tools, object, etc.) have been related to
corresponding organizational factors (characteristics,
data, strategy, etc.) in the structure of a human activity
system. The relevant characteristics of the target groups
and users relate to the subject, i.e. an individual or group
engaged in the activity. Data, information, and ICTs have
been attached to the tools which mediate between the
subject and the object, i.e. the physical or mental product.
Organizational culture includes common espoused values
and basic underlying assumptions. Leadership has the
potential to influence organizational culture to certain
extent. The community, on the other hand, shares a
common set of rules. For this reason, the organizational
culture and leadership factors have been clustered with
rules and community. Work design and office
architecture are connected to task specialization and
division of labor. The organizational functions of strategy
definition/implementation and controlling have been
added to the outcome of the activity, because they focus
on the targets and verification of the results of the
activities in line with strategy.
III. LEARNING ASSESSMENT GUIDELINE
Based on the proposed MOD, a questionnaire, the
learning assessment guideline (LAG), was developed.
The LAG assesses organisational factors relevant for
individual and organisational learning. Research findings
from the fields of HRD and OL/KM were used to
generate an initial item pool. The design and evaluation
of the LAG in the test environments consisted of two
empirical phases. In the first phase, face-to-face and
written interviews with managers provided information
relevant for the implementation of process-oriented
learning with a focus on a management perspective.
Results from these interviews were used in the second
2
ICELW 2008
phase to develop an online survey which gathered
information on the employee’s perspective on workplace
learning.
A pool of 129 items was developed based on both the
literature review and the interviews with managers, and
an online survey was conducted in January and February
2008 using this item pool. Overall, 191 employees from
five different organisations answered the LAG. This data
was used to analyze the structure of the questionnaire and
select appropriate items with good test statistics.
Orthogonal factor analysis with Varimax rotation
revealed seven factors (explaining 50 % of the overall
variance). To reduce the complexity of the factor
structure, items loaded substantially on more than one
factor were excluded. Within each factor, a reliability
analysis was conducted for the remaining items. Items
which correlated with a factor score of less than .30, were
successively excluded. The final scales exhibited
satisfactory reliabilities (Cronbach’s Alpha) between .66
and .91. Consequently, the final version of the LAG
contains 63 items relating to seven factors: organizational
learning orientation (OLO, 21 items), appropriateness of
didactics in prior training (DFT, 11 items), availability of
infrastructure for e-learning (IEL, 9 items), extrinsic
motivation for training (EMT, 6 items), workload (WL, 6
items), preference to learn individually (PIL, 5 items),
and preference to learn collaboratively (PCL, 6 items).
To further validate the organizational nature of the
dimensions assessed by the LAG, intraclass correlations
(ICC) were computed for each scale on both an
organizational and a team level. High intraclass
correlations indicate very similar scale values within an
organization/team. This analysis confirmed that the LAG
assesses mostly organisational factors: OLO, IEL, and
PIL are both significantly correlated within the
organization and the team. DFT, EMT, and WL are
significantly correlated within organizations.
Interestingly, PCL seems to be more an individual than
an organisational dimension.
IV. EMPIRICAL RESULTS FROM TWO ORGANIZATIONS
To visualize assessment with the LAG, data from two
organizations, one from the telecommunication sector and
one from the health care sector, was further analyzed and
compared. 20 employees from the telecom company
(mean age = 37.42 yrs, mean length of service in
company = 5.83 yrs, 11 % management) and 25
employees from the health care company (mean age =
43.25 yrs, mean length of service in company = 17.26
yrs, 27 % management) answered the questionnaire. As
the descriptive characteristics of both samples show,
these companies differ greatly both in employee age
structure and frequency of employee change. However,
despite these descriptive differences the two companies
are fairly similar in many of the LAG scales (BFT,
WMT, WL, and PCL, cp. Fig. 2).
The International Conference on E-Learning in the Workplace 2008, www.icelw.org
June 12-13, New York, NY, USA
OLO
5
4,5
4
PCL DFT
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
PIL IEL
WL EMT
health care
telecom
Figure 2. Assessment results from the telecommunication and the
health care sector
However, the comparison also shows substantial
differences in three scales. Results for the health care
organization, for instance, show a higher degree of
organizational learning orientation (OLO). In contrast,
the telecom company has better infrastructure for e-
learning (IEL) and a higher preference for individual
learning (PIL).
This indicates that the learning environment at the
telecom company is suited to e-learning. In contrast, the
introduction of e-learning at the health care company
would require changes in the organizational environment.
However, this company does have a higher overall
learning orientation, which is beneficial for individual
and organizational learning at the workplace.
As was shown for these two organizations, the results
of the LAG provide a basis for improving the
organizational factors relevant for workplace learning.
Additionally, the results can be used to select appropriate
didactic strategies.
V. DECISION SUPPORT
There is still a lack of research on the correlation of
organizational characteristics and suitable didactic
measures. However, based on the literature survey and
analysis, a number of factors have been identified which
appear to be linked to this issue. Through the empirical
work carried out in the EU project PROLIX (Process
oriented learning and knowledge exchange), data will be
collected from a series of individual test bed
organizations and should serve as the basis for
verification of our assumptions.
A. Decision Support for Didactic Strategies
In accordance with the literature analysis, the
following organizational aspects can be identified as
relevant for the definition of a didactic strategy: ICT
skills, peer support, supervisor support, workload,
feedback, goal orientation, learning culture, and work
processes (ability and authorization to self-organize the
work required).
3
ICELW 2008
The following have been defined for each of these
organizational factors:
• Occurrences which support or do not support
learning
• Potential challenges faced by the use of specific
didactic models and underlying assumptions
• Potential benefits of using appropriate didactic
models and related assumptions.
Based on the assumptions which had to be made, an
attribute can be defined for each individual organizational
factor as follows: ICT skills are relevant for e-learning
and blended learning. Helpful peer support increases
motivation for collaborative learning. Supervisor support
can increase the willingness of employees to participate
in learning processes which require high levels of
motivation and personal involvement. A very heavy
workload obstructs self-organized learning. Employees
should be familiar with providing and receiving feedback
if this is required by the didactic models. A mastery goal
orientation favors collaborative learning processes. A
strong learning culture supports collaborative learning. A
high degree of standardization implies less familiarity on
the part of the workforce with self-organized learning.
These attributes can be summarized as follows:
• Required usage of ICT (e-learning)
• Collaboration
• Self-organization
• Feedback.
Following the description of didactic models listed in
deliverable 4.2 of the PROLIX project (University of
Vienna, see also [10]), it is expected to be possible to
search for these attributes to establish a connection
between the organizational status quo and the selection of
didactic models.
It should, however, also be noted that learning design
rules in general should be understood in a probabilistic,
not a deterministic sense. “Applying a rule does not
guarantee that we reach the desired outcome, but it does
increase the probability that we will.” ([18], p. 5). This
also applies to the proposed decision support information.
B. Decision Support for Management Measures
There are close links between individual learning and
OL/KM and for this reason it is proposed to provide
decision support for management measures based on both
HRD and OL/KM and directed by the outcomes of the
LAG.
OL/KM literature provides a rich portfolio of
instruments and methods for interventions in
organizations (e.g. [15]) HRD also provides valuable
inputs for appropriate organizational measures (e.g. [4],
p. 621). This allows a precise proposal of management
measures to be provided based on any specific
deficiencies identified by the LAG.
The assessment results enable the provision of
decision support for the respective management team.
Appropriate measures and instruments can be proposed
for a specific organization in line with the most
significant areas identified for improvement,.
The International Conference on E-Learning in the Workplace 2008, www.icelw.org
June 12-13, New York, NY, USA
VI. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
This project provided a validated version of an
assessment of the organizational factors that influence
work-related learning. Further steps in this research will
apply this version of the LAG to gather additional data.
The significance of this data will be evaluated in relation
to individual didactic preferences of training participants.
Furthermore, the applicability and usefulness of the
resultant decision support for didactic strategy and
management measures will be tested.
REFERENCES
[1] D. H. Kim, "The Link between Individual and Organizational
Learning", MIT Sloane Management Review, Fall 1993 1993,
pp. 37-50
[2] M. Schwaninger, "Intelligent Organizations - Powerful
Models for Systemic Management", Springer, Berlin, 2006
[3] D. S. Chiaburu, A. G. Tekleab, "Individual and contextual
influences on multiple dimensions of training effectiveness",
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 29 No. 8 2005
[4] D. S. Chiaburu, S. V. Marinova, "What predicts skill transfer?
An exploratory study of goal orientation, traning self-efficacy
and organizational supports", International Journal of
Training and Development, 9:2 2005, pp. 110-123
[5] D. Russ-Eft, "A Typology of Training Design and Work
Environment Factors Affecting Workplace Learning and
Transfer", Human Ressource Development Review, Vol. 1
No. 1 2002, pp. 45-65
[6] P. Gardiner, "Soaring to new heights with learning orientated
companies", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 11 No. 7
1999, pp. 255-265
[7] S. J. Confessore, W. J. Kops, "Self-Directed Learning and the
Learning Organization: Examining the Connection Between
the Individual and the Learning Environment", Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 9. no. 4 1998, pp.
365-375
[8] S. I. Tannenbaum, "Enhancing continuous learning:
diagnostic findings from multiple companies", Human
Resource Management, Vol. 36 No. 4 1997, pp. 437-452
[9] CEN, "European Guide to good Practice in Knowledge
Management CWA 14924",
http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains
/isss/cwa/knowledge+management.asp, abgerufen am
15.5.2007 2004
[10] European KM Forum, "KM Assessment Model and Tool -
D2.2 IST Project No 2000-26393",
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/library/deliverables/ekmf_d
22_v04_2002_02_28_iat.pdf, abgerufen am 4.7.2007 2002
[11] K. Mertins, P. Heisig, and J. Vorbeck, "Knowledge
Management - Best Practices in Europe", Springer, Berlin,
2001
[12] W. R. Bukowitz, R. L. Williams, "The Knowledge
Management Fieldbook", Pearson Education Limited,
Harlow, 1999
[13] K. M. Wiig, "People-Focused Knowledge Management",
Elsevier, Burlington, MA, 2004
[14] D. Snowden, "The Social Ecology of Knowledge
Management", in: Charles Despres, Daniele Chauvel,
Knowledge Horizons, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 2000,
pp. 237-265
[15] S. Billett, "Learning through work: workplace affordances
and individual engagement", Journal of Workplace Learning,
13 No. 5 2001, pp. 209-214
[16] J. Lave, E. Wenger, "Situated learning", Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1991
[17] R. F. Poell, K. van Dam, and P. T. van den Berg, "Organising
Learning in Work Contexts", Applied Psychology, 53 (4)
2004, pp. 529-540
[18] J. N. Streumer, "Work-Related Learning", Kluwer, Dordrecht,
2004
4
ICELW 2008 June 12-13, New York, NY, USA

[19] D. Ashton, "The dynamics of workplace learning: the role of AUTHORS

work organizations", in: Karen Evans, Phil Hodkinson, Lorna
Unwin, Working to Learn: Transforming Learning in the R. Pircher is Director of Studies for Banking and
Workplace, Routledge, London, 2002, pp. 149-162 Finance at the University of Applied Sciences bfi Vienna,
[20] R. Pircher, "Gestaltungsdimensionen der organisatorischen Austria (e-mail: richard.pircher@fh-vie.ac.at)
Wissensbasis - ein integratives Modell mit Analyserahmen
zur wissensorientierten Begleitung zielgerichteter
E. Mayr is a researcher at the KnowComm Research
Veränderung von Organisationen", Dissertation, Karl- Center at the Danube University Krems, Austria (e-mail:
Franzens-Universität Graz, 2004 eva.mayr@donau-uni.ac.at).
[21] P. Heisig, R. Orth, "Wissensmanagement Frameworks aus L. Zenk, is a researcher at the KnowComm Research
Forschung und Praxis – Eine inhaltliche Analyse", eureki, Center at the Danube University Krems, Austria (e-mail:
Berlin, 2005
[22] D. H. Jonassen, L. Rohrer-Murphy, "Activity Theory as a
lukas.zenk@donau-uni.ac.at).
Framework for Designing Constructivist Learning H. Risku is Head of the Department of Knowledge and
Environments", Educational Technology, Research and Communication Management at the Danube University
Development, 47, No. 1 1999, pp. 61-79 Krems, Austria (e-mail: hanna.risku@donau-uni.ac.at).
[23] Y. Engeström, "Expansive Learning at Work: toward an
activity theoretical reconceptualization", Journal of
Education and Work, 14, No. 1 2001, pp. 133-155
[24] R. Pircher, L. Zenk, and H. Risku, "The impact of
organizational characteristics on learning and knowledge Manuscript received 14 December 2007. This work is co-funded by
transfer - Assessment structure for individual and the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme,
organisational learning management in the ongoing project Priority 2 "Information Society Technologies".
PROLIX", in: Norbert Gronau, 4th conference on
professional knowledge management experiences and visions
Band 2, 208, Gito, Berlin, 2007, pp. -201
Published as submitted by the authors.

The International Conference on E-Learning in the Workplace 2008, www.icelw.org 5