THE TURTLE AND THE CHEETAH:
LEARNING ABOUT CYBER
SECURITY KNOWLEDGE
DEVELOPMENT IN
EDUCATION AND
BUSINESSES
Final version: 24 August 2016
Student C.M. Markwat MSc
Student ID: 10882359
christian.markwat@student.uva.nl
Master Thesis in the fulfillment of the
MSc Information Studies: Business Information Systems
University of Amsterdam – Faculty of Science
Supervisor Dr. E.J. de Vries Faculty of Economics and Business Department of Information Management
University of Amsterdam
Science Park 904, Amsterdam erik.de.vries@uva.nl
_________________________________
Second reader Dr. M. Ruivenkamp Faculty of Economics and Business Department of Information Management
University of Amsterdam
Science Park 904, Amsterdam
martin.ruivenkamp@han.nl
THE TURTLE AND THE CHEETAH:
LEARNING ABOUT CYBER
SECURITY KNOWLEDGE
DEVELOPMENT IN
EDUCATION AND
BUSINESSES
Master Thesis by C.M. Markwat MSc, in the fulfillment of the MSc
Information Studies: Business Information Studies at the University of
Amsterdam.
24 August 2016
Student C.M. Markwat MSc Faculty of Science MSc Information Studies Business Information Systems University of Amsterdam Science Park 904, Amsterdam christian.markwat@student. uva.nl Drs. Ing. R. Esmaili Faculty of Digital Mediaand Creative Industries HBO-ICT
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
1000BA, Amsterdam r.esmaili@hva.nl
Supervisor Dr. E.J. de Vries Faculty of Economics and
Business Department of Information Management University of Amsterdam Science Park 904, Amsterdam erik.de.vries@uva.nl
ABSTRACT
A major problem in Dutch IT education is the difference between the knowledge and skills of recent graduates and the knowledge and skills that are needed in business. In other words, there is a gap between theory and practice. Especially in cyber security, educational institutions have failed to keep up with the developments in the field. This action research study adopts a social constructivist approach to construct a community of practice-based solution to closing the knowledge gap in a sustainable manner. The intervention design of this solution is based on the principles of the network organization, the learning organization and knowledge processes of the SECI model by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Interviews were held with the key stakeholders, including senior students, teachers and business representatives. The data from the interviews was analyzed by identifying claims, concerns and issues of the stakeholders. These were in turn used to refine the proposed solution.
The final design of the is called the ‘Innovation Lab for cyber security’ and features a network organization in which all three stakeholders take part. Consequently, a physical space is created based on the principles of the learning organization, where current projects related to cyber security are addressed in teams involving all stakeholders. Knowledge will be constantly extracted from the Innovation Lab and used to teach to junior students. In this, way the knowledge gap is closed in a sustainable custom.
Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are provided.
Keywords: Innovation in education, Knowledge creation, Absorptive capacity, Learning organization, Network organization, Organizational theory, Action research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 4
List of tables and figures ... 7
1. INTRODUCTION ... 8 1.1 Problem statement ... 8 1.2 Relevance ... 9 1.3 Research question ... 9 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 10 2.1 Absorptive capacity ... 10
2.1.1 Absorptive capacity and the role of internal actors ... 11
2.1.2 Absorptive capacity and organizational capacity ... 11
2.2 Knowledge creation ... 13 2.2.1 Epistemological dimension ... 13 2.2.2 Ontological dimension ... 14 2.2.3 Knowledge spiral ... 15 2.2.4 Contextual factors ... 16 2.3 Learning organization ... 19
2.3.1 Social learning theory ... 19
2.3.2 Learning organization ... 21
2.3.3 Knowledge management ... 26
2.3.4 Issues in the learning organization ... 28
2.3.5 Success factors for the learning organization ... 29
2.3.6 Learning organizations and absorptive capacity ... 30
2.3.7 Learning organizations and external actors ... 32
2.3.8 Learning organizations and learning processes ... 34
2.4 Network organization ... 38
2.4.1 Network theory ... 38
2.4.3 Network theory and social capital ... 44
2.4.4 Success factors for the network organization ... 44
2.4.5 Network organization and absorptive capacity ... 46
2.5 Conceptual model ... 48 3. METHODOLOGY ... 50 3.1 Action research ... 50 3.2 Data collection ... 50 3.3 Data analysis ... 51 3.4 Communities of practice ... 51 4. CCI DIAGNOSIS ... 52 4.1 Students ... 52 4.2 Teachers ... 54 4.3 Company representatives ... 56 4.4 Diagnosis... 57 5. INTERVENTION DESIGN ... 58
5.1 Concerns and issues ... 58
5.3 Design Innovation Lab ... 62
6. CONCLUSION ... 63
6.1 Research question ... 63
6.2 Limitations and recommendation for future research ... 63
6.3 Personal reflection ... 64
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 65
REFERENCES ... 66
Appendix A. Literature sample ... 74
Appendix B. The essence of a learning organization ... 76
Appendix C. Design principles of managerial practice fields ... 77
Appendix D. Interview transcripts ... 78
List of tables and figures
Figures
Figure 1. Learning process in the Innovation Lab ... 9
Figure 2. Model of sources of an organization’s knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) ... 11
Figure 3. Iceberg model of tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, Toyama and Konno, 2000) ... 14
Figure 4. Knowledge spiral (Nonaka, Toyama and Konno, 2000) ... 15
Figure 5. The SECI model (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) ... 16
Figure 6. Ba as a shared context for knowledge creation (Nonaka and Konno, 1998) ... 17
Figure 7. Learning by working (Örtenblad, 2004) ... 24
Figure 8. Primary model of knowledge management (Córdovaa et al., 2015) ... 27
Figure 9. Model of knowledge transfer (Gilbert and Cordey-Hayes, 1996) ... 31
Figure 10. A sequential model of technological innovation (Bush and Frohman, 1991) ... 45
Figure 11. A concurrent model of technological innovation (Bush and Frohman, 1991) ... 45
Figure 12. Model of absorptive capacity in a network environment I ... 49
Figure 13. Model of absorptive capacity in a network environment II ... 49
Figure 14. Example of a network organization structure (adapted from Granovetter, 1973; 1983) ... 59
Figure 15. The learning cycle in the Innovation Lab ... 60
Figure 16. Knowledge creation processes in the learning organization (adapted from Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) ... 61
Figure 17. High level model of the Innovation Lab ... 62
Tables
Table 3. CCI theme matrix ... 57
Table 1. Literature sample ... 74
Table 2. Theoretical foundation ... 75
Table 4. The essence of a learning organization (based on Gephart et al., 1996) ... 76
Table 5. Design principles for managerial practice fields (based on Kofman and Senge, 1993) ... 77
1. INTRODUCTION
The developments in the field of Information Technology (IT) grow at an unprecedented pace and the diversity of arising questions and involved disciplines is expanding, even more so in the field of cyber security. This results in major challenges for both education and business. On the one hand knowledge institutions, such as universities and universities of applied sciences, fail to absorb new knowledge from practice at a satisfactory pace. And on the other hand, the current design of educational institutions in higher education is outdated and does not connect to current-day demand for specific information technology knowledge and skills by businesses. (Esmaili, 2016 forthcoming).
1.1 Problem statement
The Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (Hogeschool van Amsterdam, abbreviated as HvA) has been actively exploring how to sustainably close the gap between the knowledge and skills that students acquire during their studies and that what is needed during their professional career. Recently, the HvA has started an initiative to set up an Innovation Lab where students, teachers, businesses and researchers meet and exchange knowledge in an effort to close this gap. This initiative is the result of several studies that have been done at the HvA ‘HBO-ICT’ undergraduate program by drs. Reza Esmaili (2016 forthcoming). One of these studies made a first step towards the aforementioned Innovation Lab by integrating the teacher as a part of the student project team during student internships. In this way the teacher is closer to current knowledge developments.
In the future Innovation Lab, three stakeholders are present. Firstly, businesses are invited to present problems that they currently face related to the topic of cyber security. Secondly, teams of senior students of educational institutions will address these issues. And thirdly, teachers will also take part in these teams. All three actors will work together on a solution. The newly created knowledge is consolidated in a learning platform for junior students to learn from and to prepare for working in the Innovation Lab. Graduates are encouraged to create a start-up around current issues in cyber security. In turn, ultimately, these start-ups as new businesses, may feed new projects into the Innovation Lab. The learning process in the proposed Innovation Lab on cyber security may be designed according to the preliminary cycle model presented in Figure 1 below. It starts with business challenges which are supplied to the Innovation Lab. Students and instructors will work in the Lab on these challenges and provide businesses with several solutions. These solutions will be distilled into new knowledge (e.g. courses), which will be internalized by the businesses providing the challenges, students and instructors. The Lab provides facilities for new businesses to be started from this new knowledge. Ultimately, these businesses may provide new challenges for the Lab to work on, externalize and teach to junior students. This closes the learning loop in the Innovation Lab.
Figure 1. Learning process in the Innovation Lab
A key goal of the Innovation Lab is to increase the absorptive capacity of the involved organizations. By improving their receptiveness and access to new knowledge, a new meaningful organization is created.
1.2 Relevance
This study is practically relevant as it tries to solve a current problem in IT education: the knowledge gap between what educational programs offer and what business organizations need. It is also scientifically relevant as it reviews literature relevant to absorptive capacity, learning and knowledge exchange and relates this to how according to the involved stakeholders the knowledge gap can be closed. This study then attempts to sketch a blueprint of the organizational form that could close the knowledge gap in a sustainable manner.
1.3 Research question
The focus of this study is on the underlying rationale of knowledge platforms in which distinct stakeholders take part, in this case the Innovation Lab for cyber security. The design and the content of the learning process will be defined by means of relevant theories regarding the learning organization, knowledge exchange between and within organizations and individuals and the absorptive capacity of organizations. The answer however, will be guided by studying the current situation. The research question is:
“How should an Innovation Lab be designed in order to sustainably close the knowledge gap
between theory and practice in the field of cyber security?”
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In order to provide the reader with a theoretical overview of the key concepts related to this study, this chapter and its subsequent subsections will describe the concepts of absorptive capacity, knowledge creation, learning organization and the network organization. The concluding subsection presents a conceptual model where all discussed theoretical concepts are integrated.
2.1 Absorptive capacity
Knowledge plays an important role in organizations. Especially the creation and diffusion of information is a topic of interest in research in organizations. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) argue that the development of knowledge is established through the evolution of knowledge. The organization should develop an ability to move in line with this evolution of knowledge in order to remain competitive in its environment. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) have developed this theory and called it absorptive capacity, in which the absorptive capacity of the individual and that of the organization is central. The authors argue that organizations should constantly improve their ability to evaluate, value, assimilate and apply new knowledge. This ability is directly related to prior related knowledge. This prior related knowledge determines the speed of assimilation of the new knowledge.
Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) conception of absorptive capacity is supported by the cognition and the behavioral sciences. For instance, some have argued earlier that a certain degree of prior knowledge increases the speed of learning (Bower and Hilgard, 1981). This is due to the fact that human memory more easily saves concepts that are similar to or related to previously learnt concepts.
Bradshaw, Langley and Simon (1983) and Simon (1985) emphasize that prior related knowledge is not only important for learning new knowledge, but also when developing problem-solving abilities and creativity. In their study, they found that one of the two groups of students who were asked to solve a problem had significantly better outcomes. One group was asked to solve a small related problem before starting to solve the actual problem. This group outperformed the other group. This is due to the fact that this group had to opportunity to already learn from the first problem. Students who developed prior related knowledge were thus advantaged with that learning experience and performed better in the end compared to the students who did not ‘learn’ before solving the problem. Simon (1985) argues that prior related knowledge stimulates creative processes in problem-solving. Ellis (1965) adds to this that prior related knowledge speeds up solving certain problems.
Learning is a cumulative process according to Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) theory. Diversity of learning objects will increase an individual’s absorptive capacity which leads to improved ability for assimilating new knowledge and solving problems. In summary, Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) provide
a model of the sources of knowledge of an organization, see Figure 2. The model shows that the knowledge of the organization is provided by both the internal R&D department and spill-overs from the external environment. The organization’s absorptive capacity is for the most part determined by the R&D department. Most importantly, this degree of absorptive capacity directly influences the degree to which external knowledge can be assimilated through spill-overs of external organizations. Zahra and George (2002) distinguish between realized and potential absorptive capacity. An organization that discovered new knowledge in its external environment and consequently assimilated this knowledge has converted its potential absorptive capacity into realized absorptive capacity. This is also reflected in the model.
Figure 2. Model of sources of an organization’s knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990)
2.1.1 Absorptive capacity and the role of internal actors
According to the model in Figure 2, an organization’s absorptive capacity consists of the sum of the absorptive capacity of all internal actors in the organization, the direct relations with the external environment of the organization and knowledge transfer within the organizations and between the focal organization and the organization it has a relation with (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). This shows that absorptive capacity in general is very much dependent on internal actors. In such a way internal actors can be seen as decentral knowledge intermediaries. Simon (1985) adds that the diverse backgrounds of the internal actors will foster the problem-solving ability of the actors and overlapping knowledge will accelerate communication. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) emphasize that a strong network of internal and external actors in increase both potential and realized absorptive capacity.
2.1.2 Absorptive capacity and organizational capacity
Exposure to external knowledge alone is not enough to ensure that internal actors will internalize such knowledge. In addition to prior related knowledge, internal actors also need to develop organizational capabilities (Jansen, Van den Bosch and Volberda, 2005). Organizational capabilities are defined as “… combinative capabilities that enable them to synthesize and apply current and newly acquired external knowledge.” (p. 1000). Jansen et al. studied three organizational capabilities and the degree to
which they influenced the absorptive capacity of an organization. The organizational capabilities include coordination, system and socialization capabilities.
Coordination capabilities improve knowledge exchange across disciplinary and hierarchical boundaries. Common characteristics of coordination capabilities are cross-functional interfaces, participation in decision-making and job rotation. By using and combining these capabilities, internal actors from different sources of expertise and functional background are brought together, which may lead to “… lateral forms of communication that deepen knowledge flows across functional boundaries and lines of authority.” (p. 1001). Next to that, cross-functional interfaces enable internal actors to combine existing and newly acquired knowledge, which concerns to realized absorptive capacity. Participation in decision-making is about the degree to which subordinates take part in higher-level decision-making processes. When subordinates participate in such processes, the range of prospective receptors to the environment increases (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Some argue that although participation in decision-making leads to more and higher quality ideas, implementation may slow down implementation of new ideas, this was however not supported in Jansen’s et al. (2005) study. Job rotation is the horizontal transfer of internal actors between jobs. Job rotation is assumed to increase problem-solving skills and increase an actor’s network in the organization. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) add that job rotation also leads to increased capacity of making new linkages and associations. Job rotation thus “… enables the acquisition and assimilation of new external knowledge that constitute potential absorptive capacity.” (p. 1001).
System capabilities features the formalization, routinization and standardization of work within the organization. It creates a formal organizational memory for handling routine situations. Formalization is the degree to which rules, procedures, instructions and communications are formalized or codified. It is also used as a frame reference for problem-solving. Jansen et al. (2005) found that a higher degree of formalization is not negatively related to acquisition and assimilation of new external knowledge as acquisition and assimilation may be formalized to some extent. Routinization is the development and adoption of sequences of tasks that required relatively little attention and results in a standardized outcome. Jansen et al. (2005) also argue that routinization is negatively related to acquisition and assimilation of new external knowledge.
Socialization capabilities create generalist rules that are tacitly understood. These capabilities contribute to common codes of communication and dominant values. Socialization capabilities are enabled by means of connectedness and socialization tactics. Connectedness refers to the density of the network of internal actors that serve as a governance mechanism and accelerate knowledge exchange. Dense networks are positively related to trust and cooperation, but increase redundancy of information and access to opposing perspectives. Dense networks were thought to constrain the engagement in broad exploratory searches for new external knowledge. However, Jansen et al. (2005) did not find support for this. Finally, socialization tactics are socially constructed norms, values and beliefs that offer newcomers information on how to interpret and respond to certain situations.
2.2 Knowledge creation
In this study, knowledge creation is considered from the perspective of social constructivism. According to Duffy & Cunningham (1996), social constructivism is about “… learning as an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge and instruction is process of supporting of that construction rather than communicating knowledge.” (p. 171). Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) refer to this as meaningful learning, where meaningful is active, constructive, intentional, authentic and cooperative. Understanding knowledge creation theory is an important is an important step towards fostering absorptive capacity. The dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation claims that knowledge is created through two dimensions: the epistemological and the ontological dimension (Nonaka, Byosiere, Brucki and Konno, 1994; Nonaka, Toyama and Byosiere, 1995; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
2.2.1 Epistemological dimension
Polanyi (1966) argues that two types of knowledge exist. One type of knowledge is called tacit knowledge and it refers to knowledge that is embedded in individuals and in a certain situation. He refers to tacit knowledge by saying “We can know more than we can tell.” (p. 4). In contrast to tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge is easily transferable by means of words, images and data. Polanyi states that knowledge is created through the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be transformed with formal language. Tacit knowledge is, in contract to explicit knowledge, connected to an individual. Therefore, tacit knowledge is hard to transfer by means of formal language. Tacit knowledge originates from action, commitments and engagement of individuals in a certain context.
According to Polanyi (1966) and Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000), knowledge can be perceived as an iceberg, in which explicit knowledge is the top and the remaining part is implicit knowledge. The model knows the focal organization and a partner organization. Both interact, e.g. by means of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Next to explicit knowledge exchange, there is an exchange of implicit knowledge through mutual understanding and trust through shared experiences. Some parts of implicit knowledge, such as needs, mental models and specific knowledge about product and market remain captured in the separate organizations. In order for the knowledge to be exchanged, it first needs to be externalized, or made explicit, so that is can be exchanged as tacit knowledge. The discussed model is presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Iceberg model of tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, Toyama and Konno, 2000)
Nonaka et al. claim that implicit knowledge consists of a technical and a cognitive component. The former represents the ‘know-how’ of the craftsmanship in a specific context. The latter represents the mental models through which an individual looks at the world. Nonaka argues that the cognitive component illustrates how the current situation works and how the future desired situation would look like at the same time.
2.2.2 Ontological dimension
Nonaka (1994) refers to the level of social interaction as the ontological dimension of knowledge theory. This dimension is concerned with the transfer of knowledge in a specific context from the individual to groups and from groups to the organization. The creation of the context in which knowledge is transferred is done by the organization. In this context, individuals interact and create knowledge. It is the role of the organization to disseminate this knowledge both internally and externally. This process is also referred to as organizational knowledge creation. Nonaka sees an organization as the facilitator of an informal community of social interaction between internal and external actors. The knowledge that is created in this context needs to be taken into account in the organizational strategy. In this way, informal knowledge is made formal within the hierarchical structure of the organization. Key is the commitment of the individuals in this context.
Commitment is the fundament on which the interaction between individuals for knowledge creation happens (Polanyi, 1966). According to Nonaka (1994) there are three areas of attention for organizations to encourage and facilitate commitment among individuals. These include intention, autonomy and fluctuation.
Intention is the way in which an individual approaches a certain context with the goal of creating value. Weick (1979) calls this the self-fulfilling prophecy of the system in which self-actualization is an
important characteristic. With this positioning, intention becomes not merely a state of mind, but an action-oriented concept.
Autonomy relate to the individual, group or organizational level. On the individual level, it implies that the opportunity is created in the organization for individuals to introduce surprising or unknown perspectives. Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) refers to these perspectives with their garbage can metaphor, which paves the road to new unexpected decisions.
Fluctuation is a situation of chaos that may arise when individuals interact internally and externally. Such chaos may lead to new forms of interaction, in which individuals adapt the current system or create a new system in order to cope with the new situation. According to Nonaka (1994), fluctuation should be differentiated from unorganized and chaotic environment. The difference is that situations featuring fluctuation are not continuously chaotic, but are characterized by periodic breakdowns (Winograd and Flores, 1986). In the event of a breakdown, individuals may reconsider the value of their customs and routines. In the same fashion, Piaget (1974) argues that contradiction between an individual and its environment fosters the perceptions and development of the perceptions of individuals. This supports individuals in the creation of new perceptions, e.g. in the event of breakdowns.
2.2.3 Knowledge spiral
By combining the epistemological and the ontological dimensions of knowledge creation, Nonaka (1994) and Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) have developed a model in which knowledge is converted from implicit to explicit knowledge. The model shows the process of knowledge conversion, called the knowledge spiral. This model is also presented in Figure 4. In the knowledge spiral existing knowledge is converted to new knowledge. The process starts with social interaction (epistemological dimension), after which the expansion of knowledge takes place (ontological dimension).
In response of Nonaka, Toyama and Konno’s (2000) knowledge spiral model, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have created a model on four modes of how knowledge can be transformed. These modes include socialization, externalization, combination and internalization (SECI model). In first process implicit knowledge of one individual is converted to implicit knowledge of the other individual. In the second process implicit knowledge is converted to explicit knowledge. The knowledge then becomes external to the individual. In the third process, new external knowledge is converted and added to existing explicit knowledge of the individual. Nonaka and Takeuchi: “Combination is a process of systemizing concepts into a knowledge system. This mode “…involves combining different bodies of explicit knowledge.” (p. 67). In the fourth and final process existing explicit knowledge is converted to implicit knowledge. This process refers to the successful transfer of knowledge from an explicit source. For instance, reading a book and learning from it. A graphical representation of the SECI model is presented in Figure 5.
Figure 5. The SECI model (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
2.2.4 Contextual factors
The context of knowledge creation needs to satisfy certain conditions in order to yield successful outcomes. Nonaka and Konno (1998) argue that a specific environment needs to be created for knowledge creation occur. In their article they build a foundation for knowledge creation. An important element of that foundation is the concept of ‘Ba’. This concept refers to a shared environment where a relation among participants is shaped. This environment can be both a physical space (i.e. office or classroom) as well as a virtual space (i.e. Internet, Intranet, e-mail or mental spaces for sharing experiences, ideas and ideals). Ba conceptually differentiates from other types of environments as in this environment knowledge creation processes are central. Ba offers a platform in which knowledge can be disseminated in a way that it become an asset of the community instead of just one or a few individuals. Nonaka and Konno (1998) argue that knowledge is created through individual experiences and the reflection on the experiences of others. Participating in this environment implies that individuals
explore and escape their limitations. Nonaka and Konno (1998) argue that this approach is important when creating a balance between intuition and creativity. This balance, in turn, creates a space where creativity is produced.
Another perspective is the perception of Ba as a framework restricted by time and place, in which existing knowledge is used to create new knowledge. Nonaka and Konno (1998) claim that knowledge is connected to time and place, and it may lose its value when it is not applied when needed. In the same fashion, Ba is positioned as a place where interaction with internal and external actors prospers. This conception results in the model presented in Figure 6. The model shows two individual contexts and a shared context. In the shared context, the knowledge spiral is placed. The shared context represents the concept of Ba. Knowledge that is extracted from the Ba is transformed into context-less information. This information may be freely shared outside the Ba.
Figure 6. Ba as a shared context for knowledge creation (Nonaka and Konno, 1998)
In order to advance knowledge creation in the organization, Nonaka and Konno (1998) have made the connection between Ba and the SECI model. Per process in the SECI model, a particular type of Ba is specified. For socialization, externalization, combination and internalization respectively originating Ba, interacting Ba, cyber Ba and exercising Ba are introduced.
The most important characteristic of originating Ba is face-to-face communication. Individuals share feelings, emotions, mental models and experiences in this Ba. By showing sympathy and empathy for each other, an open environment is created. Exchange of and interaction between experiences and personal communication are key activities within this environment. Sharing implicit knowledge may cause tension, energy and passion among the involved actors. In the originating Ba environment, socialization (from the SECI model) is the key process. Face-to-face contact, collaboration and the building and exchange of experiences are crucial building blocks for the originating Ba to be successful
and to create and apply new implicit knowledge. Nonaka and Konno (1998) emphasize an open culture in this environment, such that all internal and external actors can approach each other easily.
Interacting Ba is the environment where implicit knowledge is converted to explicit knowledge. The externalization process of knowledge is encouraged in this Ba. Based on dialogue, the use of metaphors and reflection, the mental models and skills of individuals are converted into general terms and definitions. This externalization (from the SECI model) process creates a space where mental models are shared and at the same time it creates an environment for the reflection and analysis of one’s own mental models. Through self-reflection, implicit knowledge is expressed in words, which makes it explicit.
Cyber Ba represents the combination phase in the SECI model. In this phase new explicit knowledge is combined with explicit knowledge that is already available inside and outside of the organization. This process includes new explicit knowledge in the knowledge base of the organization. Nonaka and Konno (1998) propose that the best facilitating environment in Cyber Ba is a virtual environment instead of a physical environment. By using online networks, documentation and databases, the combination of explicit knowledge is encouraged. Harris (1999) argues that four advantages of online environments for knowledge creation exist. Firstly, the participant has access to more sources than only the group (s)he is a member of. In this way, the participant is exposed to other perspectives, convictions, experiences and ways of thinking. Such an online environment creates many opportunities for participants to build a relationship with peers, seniors and experts. Secondly, the adoption of asynchronous communication enables learning to become independent of time and physical place. Thirdly, online environments create the opportunity to interact with the public, where according to Harris (1999) “… comparing, contrasting, and/or combining similar information collected in dissimilar locations” is made possible (p. 55). Finally, online collaboration fosters the expansion global awareness.
Exercising Ba creates an environment where explicit knowledge is brought to practice. In the exercising Ba, explicit knowledge is converted to implicit knowledge and internalized. In this phase, participants are mentored and education in order for them to understand the concepts and apply them in practice. Instead of passive learning, participants are encouraged to actively use the new knowledge by solving exercises and internalize the knowledge. In this way explicit knowledge is converted into implicit knowledge.
2
.3 Learning organization
Before we can understand what the learning organization holds, we need to understand what learning is and how the learning process occurs. Learning starts in the individual, and it will help the individual to achieve organizational goals (Ozturk, Arditi, Gunaydin, Kale and Yitman, 2009). Therefore, this chapter will first review the literature on social learning theory and knowledge management. Then, the concept of the learning organization is presented. Finally, the learning organization is discussed from the point of view of absorptive capacity and the potential value creation in the community of practice.
2.3.1 Social learning theory
The concept of learning is closely related to social learning theory. This theory asserts that learning is a cognitive process, embedded in a social context. Learning is ultimately a consequence of an individual’s behavior. Social behavior is constructed through direct conditioning and imitation (or modeling) of the behavior of other individuals. In other words, the presence and conduct of others will affect the focal individual’s behavior. The underlying mechanism is based on the fact that behavior can be strengthened by means of reward or avoidance of punishment. Aversive stimuli or a potential loss of reward may also play a role in shaping behavior, as well as historical learning behavior. For instance, differential reinforcement refers to the phenomenon that (learning) behavior is always based on historical rewards and punishments, and rewards and punishments attached to alternative behavior. Next to that, individuals learn what behavior is good and bad through the interaction with other individuals (Akers, 1977 in: Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce and Radosevich, 1979). Learning is thus a social process that features norms and values constructed through the interaction with others.
Bandura (1971) emphasizes vicarious, symbolic and self-regulatory processes, which have traditionally received little attention in contemporary learning theories. Such contemporary learning theories typically address learning as the product of direct experiences, observed from an individual’s behavior and consequences of this behavior. Bandura differentiates three features that are of importance for learning: the capability to learn by observation, superior cognitive ability and the capability of the creation of self-regulative influences. Individuals can thus learn from the behavior of others through the observation of direct experience of punishment or reward of certain behavior. This allows them to potentially solve complex problems without considering each possible alternative solution. Bandura states that “These higher mental processes permit both insightful and foresightful behavior.” (p.3.). Finally, by anticipating different patterns of consequences of behavior, individuals can manage their behavior in a certain way.
Kump, Moskaliuk, Dennerlein and Ley (2013) follow a constructivist approach to learning which posits learning as an active construction of knowledge. They address the co-evolution model of knowledge building which views individual learning and collaborative knowledge building as two interrelated
processes. When individuals learn in a shared online learning system, individual learning processes mutually influence each other. A first key assumption of the co-evolution model of knowledge building is that the online learning system, also referred to as artifact, co-evolves with the knowledge in the cognitive systems of the individuals that contribute to the learning system. In similar fashion as Nonaka and Takeuchi (1994), the co-evolution of knowledge is based on two processes: internalization and externalization. Internalization is also referred to as learning by Kump et al. (2013). Following Piaget (1977), individual learning is the consequence of an internal cognitive conflict in which the knowledge that the individual holds is not congruent anymore with that of the external world. To resolve the conflict, “… individuals may either assimilate new information to any prior knowledge or they may modify some existing knowledge to accommodate new insights.” (p. 61). Finally, the co-evolution model assumes that accommodation and assimilation both occur within the individual and within the learning system. External accommodation occurs when the organization of the learning system is changed to accommodate newly introduced knowledge. External assimilation arises when knowledge is introduced into a learning system that does not change the organization of the system. An interesting finding of the research is that stimulating learning conflicts can induce learning behavior to occur. Wenger (2000) defines learning as the “(…) interplay between social competence and personal experience. It is a dynamic, two-relationship between people and the social learning systems in which they participate. It combines personal transformation with the evolution of social structures.” (p. 227). Different modes of participation exist in social learning systems, Wenger addresses three modes of belonging to social learning systems: engagement, imagination and alignment. Engagement is about the ways in which individuals in the organization engage with each other and their environment. This shapes their experience of who they are and how to respond to their actions. Imagination refers to the ability to construct an image of the self, the community and the world one lives in. Alignment holds making sure that local activities are sufficiently aligned with other processes so that they are effective beyond their individual goal. The modes can be both conflicting and complementary.
Several scholars have tried to formalize the change processes into social learning processes. Kolb (2006) differentiates in line with Argyris (1990) between the concepts of first-order and second-order learning. First-order learning is about learning from making mistakes. It emphasizes improvement by means of an individual’s own set of knowledge and skills. Second-order learning occurs when the individual engages in a self-interactive and self-evaluative process of trial and error in (complex) situations that require new solutions. Third-order change occurs when new organizational phenomena arise though (new) interactions of organizational networks. This causes existing concepts to change and new concepts to arise through learning. Furthermore, Kolb (2006) defined three stages of a person’s development: acquisition, specialization and integration. Acquisition is about the development of basic abilities and cognitive structures. Specialization is about the development of an individual’s specialized
learning style created through social, educational and organizational socialization. Lastly, integration is referred to as the expression of non-dominant learning style in work and personal life.
A key component of social learning in the organization is organizational change. Boonstra (2000) addresses three types of change, including first-order, second-order and third-order change. First order change is about using proven methods to solve existing problems that are currently known to the organization. Second-order change is about addressing non-routine problems in the organization. Third-order change occurs when ambiguous problems arise. Such problems are in need of new solutions. In order to engage in third-order change, Boonstra (2000) argues that organizations need to interact with their environment, i.e. communicate with peers and negotiate a solution to the problem together. Additionally, Boonstra (2002) discusses five perspectives that can be used to understand organizational change. In the process of organization change, organizational learning takes an important role. Boonstra addresses Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (1984) as an important process that is still current in contemporary organizations. Kolb’s learning theory specifies four learning styles, based on a four stage learning cycle. The learning styles or preferences include diverging, assimilating, converging and accommodating. This leads to the four-stage model includes that following stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation.
Learning can thus be defined in terms of the individual (Bandura, 1971; Akers, 1977; Piaget, 1977; Kolb, 1984; 2006; Argyris, 1990), multiple individuals (Wenger, 2000; Kump et al., 2013) or the organization (Boonstra, 2000; 2002). From the perspective of the individual, one can learn by observing and imitating others’ behavior (Akers, 1977). However, the learning process is most successful when multiple individuals engage in sharing their experiences and learn by interacting with each other (Wenger, 2000), in which the interplay between social competence and personal experience is most important. In addition, organizations need to interact with their environment in order to learn (Boonstra, 2000)
2.3.2 Learning organization
Learning thus arises from the interaction between individuals. For organizations, knowledge is often referred to as their key to competitive advantage (Lee, Chen and Chen, 2015). The importance of facilitating the creation, sharing and internalization of knowledge is therefore paramount. Fostering learning in the organization is an important priority of the organization. Those organizations that facilitate and support particular forms of learning are called learning organizations. Gephart, Marsick, van Buren and Spiro (1996) define a learning organization as “… an organization that has an enhanced capacity to learn, adapt and change. It is an organization in which learning processes are analyzed, monitored, developed, managed and aligned with improvement and innovation goals. Its strategy,
leaders, values, structures, systems, processes and practices all work to foster people’s learning and development and to accelerate systems-level learning.” (p. 36).
Systems-level learning occurs when the organization synthesizes and institutionalizes its actors’ intellectual capital and core competencies. Systems-level learning is successful when knowledge remains in the organization, even when (senior) organizational actors come and go (including leadership). Another perspective on the learning organization is the view as the organization as a set of interrelated systems. Gephart and colleagues state that the interactions among organizational structures, processes and systems that facilitate learning “… shape the nature and extent of productive organizational learning.” (Spiro, 1996: p. 38). In the learning organization, leadership and management have an important role to provide support for the learning and development of organizational actors. A major influencer in learning organization theory is Peter Senge from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In his book on the learning organization, Senge (1990) argued that systems thinking is one of the main characteristics of the learning organization. He claims that there are five disciplines that all successful learning organization feature. They include shared vision, mental models, personal mastery, team learning and systems thinking. The first principle refers to the task that leaders should employ, they should create a shared vision on learning and provide common focus, commitment and a sense of mutual purpose. It is not easy to create a shared vision which results in learning behavior that individuals want to have instead of learning behavior that they feel they have to have. Leadership should actively involve and empower all actors in the organization in the process of creating a shared vision.
Spiro (1996) argues in line with Senge (1990) that a culture of trust and openness encourages to challenge assumptions and stimulate learning. Gephart et al. also remark the importance of appropriate communication and knowledge systems for learning to occur. A sense of cohesion among organizational actors can be the result of groups organized as communities of practice in which individuals working on similar project share information, develop new ideas and make contributions to the knowledge system. Gephart et al.’s contributions to the concept of the learning organization are also presented in Appendix A.
The second principle of Senge is about updating existing mental models to make the congruent with the shared learning vision. Mental models help to explain how one interprets work, the organizations and its environment in general. The third discipline focuses on personal mastery. This discipline refers to self-reflection of the individual. Especially, self-awareness is vital to achieving an understanding of how one can create it own reality and how to change it. The fourth discipline is about team learning. Although Senge agrees that learning starts from the individual, he claims that learning should be integrated in the organization such that learning becomes a collective activity, through which organizational or institutional learning can arise. In order to achieve this, the organization should move away from individualism to collectivism, with regard to learning activities. The added value of the learning experience is in sharing knowledge and evaluating it together. Senge asserts that dialogue and
skillful discussion is needed to learn in the team. In this way the team finds new ways of working, thinking and learning and increase each other’s capacity. The fifth and final discipline is systems thinking. Senge claims, alike other scholars, that organizations are connected and made of several wholes, instead of being fragmented and broken into pieces as some management scholar perceive organizations. A key advantage of the systems thinking perspective is that individuals in the organization gain a better overview of the organization as a whole, instead of only being concerned with their own team or department. Consequently, individuals will see the interdependency and interrelations of the organization. Finally, it adds to the understanding that organizational issues need integrated solutions in order for the everyone to benefit.
Senge (1990) actually claims that the learning organization is an organization that has learning in its core. The learning organization can be contrasted with the hierarchically organized organization where the specialization of work is implemented to a high degree. In such organizations, individuals do not perceive their activities, also related to learning, as part of the greater whole. This systems thinking perspective is key to the learning organizations, as it integrated learning with the organization. Kofman and Senge (1993) state that building a learning organization requires ‘… a shift that goes all the way to the core of our culture.” (p. 22). The authors stress that creativity and character of communities may get lost due to the current mental model that continuously tries to increase the control of the organizational and its environment. Therefore, communities of commitment need to be build, consisting of genuinely commitment individuals.
The learning organization has three foundations: a culture based on “(…) transcendent human values of love, wonder, humility and compassion.” (p. 16), a set of practices for generative discourse and coordinated action and a capacity to see and work with the flow of life as a system. Kofman and Senge (1993) mention managerial practice fields as a vehicle for learning. Seven design principles are specified in Table 2. The authors argue that design principles exist that are useful for learning organizations as they do not only focus on learning by the individual, but also on learning in groups and learning in the organization. These design principles are included in Table 2 in Appendix B. The key elements of the design principles are related to focus on the individual, adopt a systemic approach and safeguard room for experimentation and reflection. Focusing on individuals ensures that the learners get the opportunity to learn what it wants to learn. A systemic approach is needed for learning in the organization to be successful and to make it measureable and visible to others. Finally, room for experimentation and reflection ensures that the learning process has enough time to unfold, moreover integration with the existing work space ensures an ongoing cycle of reflection and experimentation. Örtenblad (2004) developed an integrated model of the learning organization as an extension of his earlier research (2002). He distinguishes four distinct features of learning organizations. These include
organizational learning, learning at work, learning climate and learning structure. Organizational learning is twofold. On the one hand it is about being aware of the need for different levels of learning. And on the other hand it is about storing knowledge in the organizations by making it explicit (e.g. in routines, manuals, internal service agreements, standard operating procedures, etc.).
Örtenblad (2004) refers to Argyris and Schön (1978) on the three levels of organizational learning: single-loop learning, double-loop learning and deutero learning. Organizations should “… continuously improve current ways of doing things (single-loop learning), have the capacity to question these courses of action (double-loop learning), and become aware of how they single- and double-loop learn (deutero learning).” (p. 133). The second aspect, learning at work, is about learning-on-the-job. This form of learning is superior to formal courses, as learning-on-the-job is practically relevant and new knowledge is applied nearly instantly. The third aspect, learning climate, addresses the view that learning should be facilitates, not controlled. Finally, the fourth aspect, learning structure, is about creating an organizational structure that is flexible, organic and bureaucratic. Flexible and organic refer to the characteristics that are needed to satisfy a flexible learning process. Bureaucratic refers to the learning process to be integrated into the process of the organization. Örtenblad (2004) developed an integrated model of learning by working, which is presented in Figure 7. This model represents all four aspects of the learning organization discussed above. The model departs from learning by working (i.e. learning on the job), which leads to several learning loops that may occur. Consequently, the outcomes of these learning loops are added to the knowledge base of the organization, referred to in the model as organizational memory. The processes for internalizing new knowledge in the organization need to be based on flexible action, which is according to Örtenblad (2004) “… the ultimate outcome for a (…) learning organization. This condition can be achieved with a decentralized, flat, team-based, informal structure, where everyone is empowered to act and make independent decisions – in the organization’s best interest.” (p. 139).
Some organizations explicitly make the choice to focus more on learning or even transforming their organization into a learning organization. According to Kiedrowski (2006), two critical activities needed to transform organizations into learning organizations are practically relevant. Of several critical activities, including creating a compelling vision, empowering people, mobilizing commitment and institutionalizing cultural change, only the latter two appeared to have been practically fruitful activities. Furthermore, Kiedrowski (2006) stresses that for the transformation to a learning organization it is important that the changes are supported throughout the organization, i.e. by setting up a cross-departmental change team, including team members from all departments and all hierarchical levels. Subsequently, the one should focus more on cultural changes than on structural changes in order for organizational actors to accept that needed changes.
Goh and Richards (1997) argue that the main problem with the implementation of organizational learning is that no single clear methodology exists for measuring organizational capability. The rationale of their study is that organizational learning is “… the product of individual and group learning applied to the accomplishment of the organization’s vision and performance goals and that certain management practices and internal conditions can either help or hinder the process.” (p. 577). Goh and Richards adopt the definition of the learning organization by Garvin (1993): “A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge.” (p. 80). Five major underlying organizational characteristics that are essential for learning to take place in an organization were found by Goh and Richards (1997), they include increasing clarity of purpose and mission, leadership commitment and empowerment, experimentation and rewards, transfer of knowledge and teamwork and group problem solving. For defining these characteristics, Goh and Richards take the normative perspective, which refers to learning as a collective activity that takes place under certain conditions, hence the five characteristics. Several scholars emphasize the role of institutionalizing learning in the organization. Institutionalizing learning implies that learning systems need to be structurally implemented in the organization order to sustain the learning process. This perspective on the learning organization is also expressed by Senge (1990), Kofman and Senge’s (1993), Buren and Spiro (1996) and Gephart et al. (1996).
Another perspective on the learning organization is about developing a learning community, in which learning is connected to all norms and values in the community. Gephart et al. (1996) argues that creating a sense of community is also an important consideration to foster learning (Gephart et al., 1996 Goh and Richards, 1997). Rovai (2002) confirmed this in a study on distant learning and found a relationship between cognitive learning and sense of community of the involved students. Firstly, they found that that online students feel connected to their virtual classroom community. Secondly, students with stronger sense of community tend to possess higher levels of cognitive learning. Thirdly, especially
female students tend to have a higher sense of connectedness compared to their male fellow students. Finally, ethnicity and course content do not affect sense of community and perceived cognitive learning in an online environment.
In learning organizations, collective learning processes are more important than individual learning processes (Senge, 1990; Goh and Richards, 1997). Learning should be part of the organization, part of the culture and the learning community (Kofman and Senge, 1993) and in order for the organization to embrace learning, the adoption of the systems perspective is needed (Senge, 1990; Gephart, 1996). Örtenblad (2004) extents this assertion with claiming an integrated approach to the learning organization is desired.
2.3.3 Knowledge management
Gephart and colleagues (1996) stress that knowledge needs to be captured in the learning organization. If key individuals leave, the knowledge should be retained in the organization. this is very much related to knowledge management. Davenport (1994) refers to knowledge management as the process of capturing, developing, sharing and using organizational knowledge.
Córdovaa, Durán and Galindo (2015) focus on their research on the externalization part of the process of knowledge creation by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). The reason to focus on this part of the process is that the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is considered to be one of the key activities in the process of knowledge creation. In their case study they found four critical factors of knowledge management, including knowledge transfer, knowledge dissemination, collaboration and team work and knowledge storage. Knowledge transfer does occur within organizations, but is not widely done between organizations mainly due to technical and legal limitations. Dissemination of knowledge may be unevenly distributed among actors in a learning environment. This causes dissatisfaction with the learning environment. Finally, team work and collaboration should be based on real-time information sharing, as sometimes information is not timely available.
The model of knowledge management that Córdovaa, Durán and Galindo (2015) present includes six projects to gradually improve knowledge management. These projects include: systems of conversation systems, knowledge inventory, and transformation of tacit knowledge, competence identification, document management and network usage. The model is presented in Figure 8. The initial stage of the model is the stage of conversational systems. In this stage one asks actors actively for feedback about the knowledge system and seeks to find commitment for improving the process of knowledge management. Knowledge inventory refers to a practical structured listing of available knowledge, online and offline, in the organization and/or environment. Tacit transformation refers to extracting tacit knowledge (and skills) from experts and make this knowledge explicit by means of sharing the knowledge and thus socialization of the knowledge. When it is clear what knowledge is required for
each organizational unit, a listing of knowledge and skills can be made that are certified as key competences and knowledge for each area of work. The document management project refers to accurately managing knowledge in the form of documents, such that the creation, storage, management and retrieval become more structured and transparent. Finally, the knowledge and communication systems should be integrated into a network or platform that enables and facilitates structured knowledge-based activities.
Figure 8. Primary model of knowledge management (Córdovaa et al., 2015)
Lee, Chen and Chen (2015) address that in knowledge-intensive industries knowledge is a critical competitive advantage. When knowledge management is nonexistent or lacking, no competitive advantage can be obtained or sustained. The authors introduce a hierarchical model based on three modes, or tiers as they refer to it, of knowledge management. In the first mode knowledge is distributed from the top of the organization. This mode “… provides an overview of needs and distributes knowledge about similar problem-solving activities from firm to firm, from one to one, and from project to project expeditiously.” (p. 1062). Note that organizational learning from individual project is not safeguarded in this mode. Knowledge management cells are functionally located. The second mode of knowledge management facilitates knowledge management task forces based on decentralized projects. This enhances inter-functional knowledge sharing and the transfer of tacit and explicit knowledge from project to project and from firm to firm. In the third mode of knowledge management specific knowledge is shared only in specific parts of the organizations. This mode lacks effective incentives for inter-functional knowledge distribution.
Knowledge management is a key process in the learning organization and it can lead to competitive advantage (Lee, Chen and Chen, 2015). Córdovaa et al. (2015) found several critical factors of knowledge management. They found that, especially for knowledge creation, organizational restraints
can inhibit knowledge creation to occur. It is therefore important to systematically integrate learning into the organization, for instance using the model of knowledge management by Córdovaa et al. (2015).
2.3.4 Issues in the learning organization
Earlier it was explained how the concept of social learning emerged into the learning organizations how this is related to knowledge management. Now it seems that the learning organization is the organizational form of the future. Although it is known that knowledge can lead to competitive advantage and value creation for the organization, there are also some issues related to the knowledge organization.
Kofman and Senge (1993) argue that there are three fundamental problems with the current organizational paradigm: fragmentation, competition and reactiveness. Fragmentations refers to the typical phenomenon that (complex) organizational issues are divided into workable sub-issues. This linear approach, as Kofman and Senge address it, does not fit current systemic organizational developments. They especially criticize the current separation of thinking in different knowledge fields. Problems need to be approached in a more comprehensive manner, including relevant knowledge fields. Such separated thinking results in “… walls and chimneys that separate different functions into independent and often warring fiefdoms.” (p. 8). Competition refers to that occurrence of competition as the only motivation for change and learning. Management-by-objective like styles of organizing results in overemphasis of ‘looking good’, instead of ‘being good’. Moreover, such a paradigm results a fixation on addressing short-term problems and directly measurable results. This in turn leads to ignoring underlying problems and the adoption of fixing yesterday’s solutions as today’s problems. Reactiveness refers to the widespread adoption of a ‘if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ mentality, focusing on fixing isolated issues rather than creating completely new solutions. To conclude, Kofman and Senge (1993) propose a more systemic approach for problem-solving in organizations, taking into account not merely the individuals in the organization, but the community as a whole.
One perspective comes from Satu, Lakkala and Paavola (2011), who use the knowledge-creation approach to learning by Paavola & Hakkarainen (2005). Their knowledge-creation approach focuses on learning as a collaborative process of developing and producing knowledge artifacts, such as documents, practices, and product designs. Such knowledge artifacts can be boundary objects, as Wenger (2000) calls them. In line with Fu, Wu and Ho (2009), Hong, Chen and Chai (2016) and other scholars, the authors argue that current knowledge systems are closed systems, they are thus not equipped to facilitate effective knowledge creation and knowledge two-way sharing. Therefore, Satu et al. (2011) introduce the concept of the Knowledge Practices Environment (KPE). KPE’s, in contrast to traditional digital learning environments (DLE), document and visualize learning in a different manner: “(…) users manage their knowledge artefacts by spatially arranging them in shared knowledge spaces
that also include integrated tools and functionalities for social interaction and practical coordination of activities.” (p. 1931).
Hong, Chen and Chai (2016) address the problem of idea aversion: the phenomenon in traditional learning environments that new ideas that learners come up with, that are not in line with instructors’ theories, are avoided. They argue: “Students' self-initiated ideas are less valued and appreciated (…) in most learning environments, and much less are students encouraged to devote themselves to improving their ideas to advance knowledge.” (p. 1). They found support that group processes take an important role in individual learning outcomes.
The issues addressed in this subsection mostly relate to the discrepancy between traditional and modern learning environments. Traditional learning environments are closed systems, whereas modern learning environments are open systems (Hong, Chen and Chai, 2016). Organizations should create boundary objects (Wenger, 2000), that span across several organizations. Such open systems induce learning between organizations.
2.3.5 Success factors for the learning organization
A major issue in the learning organization is that it is implemented or at least perceived as a closed learning system. There are several important elements of the learning organization that can be stimulated in order to induce learning behavior of individuals and the organization and consequently make learning organizations more successful.
Graham, Morecroft and Sterman (1992) also stress the role of managers for the transfer of prior learning to new situations. An environment in which investigation can occur is paramount for this. It remains important that managers have the ability to create learning cases, or as Senge and Sterman (1992) propose to create a physical space for learning, the so-called learning laboratories. Such laboratories focus on learning by sharing strategies and mental models. Especially a manager’s ability to map, challenge and improve its mental model is emphasized. Next to that, the authors claim that enjoyment of the learning process is important for successful learning. Greenwald (1968) argues that persuasive communication techniques stimulate the effectiveness of learning. It is also stated that persuasion can be a determinant of acceptance of content.
Sahinkarakasa, Inozua, Yumru (2010) turn to the learner’s behavior. They argue that their behavior is key in the learning process. In line with Kofman and Senge (1993) they address that facilitation and especially guidance is important to generate successful learning outcomes. Like Kofman and Senge (1993), Sahinkarakasa, Inozua, Yumru (2010) also stress that out-of-classroom learning, thus more practical learning, is a specific motivator for learners.
Yeh, Yeh and Chen (2012) mention creativity and knowledge management as crucial elements for successful knowledge creation and knowledge sharing. The authors emphasize knowledge internalization, converting explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge, in line with Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Yeh et al. (2012) argue that a blended approach to learning is best, this implies combining offline and online learning in a program. Programs featuring online learning exclusively are less successful in terms of knowledge creation and especially knowledge sharing. Learning should be focused on the learner, not on the technology that is adopted (Harris, 2000).
Menkhoff, Chay, Bengtsson, Woodard and Gan (2014) address that both face-to-face and online classroom discourses are recognized as important in enhancing the learning curve of students. Menkhoff and colleagues (2014) adopt the usage of social media to induce mobile learning in order to supplement blended learning techniques and stimulate students to engage in collaborative learning. There is no single definition of blended learning, however it involves at least the distinction between traditional teaching by a teacher and teaching by means of a digital learning environment. Online and offline learning must be alternated (Rahman, Hussein and Aluwi, 2015). Menkhoff et al. (2014) especially found that the use of social media enables young learners to pose questions in a simpler manner. Moreover, online questions were automatically documented which supported other individuals’ learning. Another finding is that introvert learners were also motivated to pose questions, whereas they would not be that engaged in a real-life offline class situation. Finally, synthesizing students’ contributions in a good way is crucial to group learning to occur.
Success factors in the learning organization can be divided into three perspectives, including the perspective of the organization, the manager and the individual. The perspective of the organization involves a systemic character of learning in the organization. This is also in line with earlier findings of Córdovaa et al. (2015). For managers and subordinates it is important to enjoy the learning experience and be persuasive in transferring knowledge to peers. Finally, the use of online learning environments is a recommended medium, although face-to-face communication remains important (Menkhoff et al., 2014).
2.3.6 Learning organizations and absorptive capacity
The literature on the learning organization that has been reviewed up until now explains how the learning organizations developed to become a concept of its own and what the learning organization entails. Furthermore, it was discussed how to retain knowledge in the organization by means of knowledge management. Subsequently, issues with and success factors of the knowledge organization were discussed. This subsection addresses the role of absorptive capacity in the knowledge organization.
