content/p367781448550806/fulltext.pdf
Introduction
Although theories and models of organisational learning have been proposed extensively, none have the edge over others. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield indicate this may be due to multiple perspectives and interpretations. Three categories that are most prevalent:
- learning as an individual activity - the individual is primarily responsible for learning within the organisation;
- collective and social learning - the predominant factor in organisational multi-level learning and is strongly related to communities of practice; and
- debated theory - can organisations learn as living entities.
- Relationship and association that facilitates individual and organisational learning is discussed.
- Information systems development (ISD) projects can be used for multi-level learning.
- Evaluation of organisational learning gives direction to implement measuring learning levels achieved.
What is an organisation?
Concepts and ideologies range according to interpretation and perspective on raised view points. The authors show preference for Cook and Yanow, and Simon who view the organisation as a system of interrelated roles and cultures. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield use this generally accepted outlook as a basis to question who learns in an organisation and the concept of organisational learning.
Influential work on learning within a social environment has been further developed for analysis in individual patterns of work, communication and social hierarchy formation. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield observe the structure of social groups and the activities that bind them. Language is seen as a key aspect of communication and interaction, and communities of practice are seen to facilitate and define social practice.
Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield observe the social traits of organisations to identify dynamic or static trends. The authors recognise that the most prominent social aspect is embedded on creation as organisations are established for particular purpose. Values are instilled based on their foundation. The rules and regulations consist of procedures for interaction. This infrastructure gives the organisation the impetus to learn. Individual and social groups support evolution. As structural changes occur, the organisation evolves to adapt and modify behaviour, allowing groups to evolve and develop cognitively. A mutual relationship of learning occurs.
What is learning?
Learning in organisational learning literature is defined as having process and outcome. Within the domain of learning in organisation, several aspects have achieved prominence. The lack of clarity when defining learning in organisations is in part due to processes that occur in conjunction but lead in "different directions and at different speeds". The presumption here is that organisations learn from human action. Information systems and their role within the organisation may identify mutual learning relationships.
The technology of an environment is intertwined with individual personal development and professional capacity to learn. The objective of the information systems must be clear as they support human activity systems. The authors question whether the fundamental aim of the process is to enhance performance or enhance the infrastructure and ensuing activities for the individual members. Learning occurs directly and indirectly as groups share, learn and apply new knowledge practically. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield indicate that where individual learning in organisations occurs directly and indirectly, organisations can only learn indirectly. Learning is summed up as a ‘‘social process where individuals interact and learn from and among one another to develop existing and gain new skills, acquire new knowledge with the intention of leading to an improvement of working practice in their jobs.’’
Organisational learning and the learning organisation
As organisations operate through department sub-units, analysis of a fragmented structure is difficult. The authors argue that the social element of an organisation is strongly associated with cultural aspects of learning (i.e. context). It would appear that the organisation has an active role in shaping the learning process. Knowledge acquired by practical working experience is channeled back into the organisation. Reflection and modification ensue, thus supporting the well-being of the organisation and increased knowledge of its members.
Understanding the concept of learning in organisations means reflecting on the cultural environment and infrastructure that supports diverse learning styles of individual members. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield note literature draws attention to learning capacity, contextual aspects, social perspectives, narratives and communities of practice. Organisational learning is about divergent social learning practices that occur as a result of infrastructural support. The authors cite Cook and Yanow in defining learning as the "operational consequences for the activities of the organisation."
This perspective of social and functionalistic interpretation by Ortenblad indicates that firms transform into learning organisations. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield highlight the on-going debate on classification of terminology - it is argued whether the two terms can be used synonymously and interchangeably or if they are distinct and interrelated. The authors emphasise the element of infrastructural adaptability and state "in providing human entities with an infrastructure to learn, a learning organisation continues to learn in itself by modifying its behaviour through the tacit knowledge embedded and subsequently interpreted in its information systems and diverse knowledge channels."
Concurrent learning of individuals and organisations
Organisations and individuals develop a reciprocal pattern of learning from each other.
Organisational learning as an individual process
Theories on knowledge creation in organisations indicate that learning transpires from the bottom up and is generated in principle by individuals. As stated earlier, the authors argue that individual learning cannot take place without appropriate infrastructure. Learning can be driven by individuals, teams or the organisation. The shared objective is to facilitate change or improvement. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield indicate that collaboration, interaction and sharing are priorities of a learning organisation.
The social and cultural perspective of organisational learning
The authors cite Wenger who states that learning in organisations should be viewed as a social phenomenon. Learning in social terms requires communities of practice to understand work in context and setting, otherwise known as learning in situ. Activity theory of knowledge highlights the need for interaction through collaboration. Perceptions of organisations evolve to "social learning systems" that directly influence collective learning. Learning complements knowledge that becomes embedded in the organisations' social practice. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield cite Yanow who argues that if organisations produce fundamental values of a collective, they can also be said to learn. Members can shape the evolution of the learning structure as the organisation absorbs knowledge from social interactions.
Can organisations learn?
Organisational learning has produced various philosophies that focus on diverse elements and hierarchies. Reaction to everyday social situations from internal and external environments requires adjustment and evolution. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield quote Hedberg who states that organisations develop "cognitive systems and memories". While individuals develop personalities, habits and beliefs, organisations develop views and ideologies. Mental models built at individual level align with organisational processing capabilities. Research done by Argyris, and Argyris and Schon indicate that double loop learning is essential for members to question policies and objectives held by the organisation, the authors state.
How organisations can learn through ISD projects
Information system development relies on the social perspective of organisational learning and is similar to communities of practice for the intention is to improve the organisation through computerised knowledge sharing. Information system development is embedded in activity theory and focuses on multi-level learning. Projects can adopt new approaches and make modifications as it progresses. Information system development methodology uses Extreme Programming (XP) to share mental models because of its' agility and lower cost. Each project requires a satellite group to share existing and new knowledge. With emphasis on dialogue, Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield indicate that learning maintains social relations. Undeveloped working communities could adversely affect outcomes.
The authors make reference to an organisations' legacy - the system of environment and processes, and the way individuals interconnect and learn. The authors refer to the works of Lyytinen and Robey; Levitt and March; Stata; McGill, Slocum and Lei; and Al-Shehab, Hughes and Winstanley who suggest it is important to recognise and learn from past mistakes and experiences. It is through interpretive reflection that organisations learn during and after project initiation. In addition to infrastructure, project success depends upon an open-learning culture to support meetings and debriefing. Similarities from previous projects provide a platform for understanding and knowledge gathering. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield argue that this view point highlights the assumption that organisations can learn. New projects provide new learning experiences. Organisations construct modifications to infrastructure. New knowledge is embedded in organisational memory. Strategy and decision-making can take on new direction.
Conclusions
The focus of this paper outlines effective use of information system development in determining whether organisations can learn. Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield indicate that while knowledge resides in a specific project member initially, the process of information system development allows collective learning to occur. Interaction, dialogue and sharing utilise skills sets particular to individuals that support a dynamic and fluid social environment. The authors indicate information system development theory promotes organisation infrastructure through facilitating social processes and see projects as a practical approach for elevating individual-level learning to organisational-level learning. Thriving social activity develops a culture of flexibility within the organisation.
Through exploring the relevance of organisational memory and learning from past mistakes Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield make a case in understanding how organisations can learn. For organisational learning to develop, more information on identifying how individuals learn, and consequently how organisations learn, is needed.
Future research
Identification of when organisational learning has occurred is also required. An establishment of approaches has been called for. Empirical testing of academic studies will define best practice models to advance the discipline. A wide focus is needed to include learning approaches from different industry sectors.
Baxter, Connolly and Stansfield have initiated a research project to understand the criteria of recognising organisation learning. The learning technology used is a blog. The authors propose that blogs are complementary to the interpretive process and can be conceptualised as an information system. Generally, blogs have not been identified as a communication tool in information system development. However, the authors indicate that blogs provide a platform to increase levels of knowledge and stimulate group and organisational reflection. Analysis of blogs will assess any increase in learning, knowledge or attitudinal behaviour. By developing Organisational Learning Mechanisms (OLM), organisations develop an effective means that allow individuals to learn and enhance skill sets. Social and cultural aspects of organisations feature predominantly at individual learning levels where an open-learning culture may lead to creative innovation processes.
No comments:
Post a Comment