The Learning Organisation and Knowledge Management

Research in Progress

University of Westminster, UK

The idea of a learning organisation has its origins in the fields of cybernetics and general systems theory, whereby organisations can be thought of as open systems that react to their environment through feedback, and change their operation appropriately.

General Systems Theory, as proposed by Von Bertalanffy [1950], consists of principles that apply to systems in general, irrespective of the nature of their components and the forces governing them; and it is this theory that tells us that it is the nature of organisations as open, complex systems, to exhibit characteristics of unpredictability.

Organisations are complex, evolving systems. They contain many parts that are linked and that affect each other in a synergistic manner that is not always to the benefit of the organisation. Complex systems are, by their very nature, dynamic and not in equilibrium [Çambel 1993], and due to their complexity their behaviour can be unpredictable and undergo sudden changes. Complexity is an idea that has been explored by the biologist Kauffman. Writing in 1995 he argues against the idea of natural selection within the biological world. He argues that order is not accidental but a result of the laws of complexity that generate emergent order in large and complex systems. Organisms, artefacts and organisations can all be evolved structures. When they are complex they face conflicting constraints. Attempts to move towards good compromise solutions or designs are like trying to move across a deformed landscape with constantly shifting peaks of fitness to strive for. The landscape can be made more volatile by external forces and can produce a state of chaos that prevents an organisation settling to a strategy for development. Knowledge it is anticipated, can help the organisation move across the shifting landscape towards a better fitness peak or towards greater stability.

An interesting comment on the state of that unpredictability and knowledge that can be applied to the turmoil that organisations find themselves embroiled in, was made by Krishnamurti in 1981. He said that, (there is) 'disorder in action because action is based in thought, which is the result of knowledge and experience, and knowledge and experience can never be complete'. When referring to knowledge in organisations, it is clear that organisations must continually be updating, expanding and developing their knowledge as a result of their experiences and, that at any time, any action taken cannot result in easily obtainable results. Any action may have unanticipated and unexpected results, as all knowledge is imperfect.

The information flows that direct the behaviour of an organisation are both internal and external. Due to the complexity of organisations, the feedback that results from these information flows may be, at times, unplanned and unexpected, leading to non-linear behaviour from the organisation. Knowledge management systems in an organisation, would seem to be part of that organisation's attempt to ensure capture and management of these information flows and to manage the resultant feedback and behaviour into a more predictable pattern. Yet turbulence or change in an organisation is important to prevent stagnation and lack of growth, eradication of such change is therefore inappropriate. It would seem therefore that there is a tension in organisations between unplanned, unpredictable change, and planned, predictable change. This is the tension between modelling and muddling [Muller and Watts 1993]. Muddling by Muller & Watts' definition is evolution towards the unknown using incremental adaptation, learning and surviving and trial and error. The strategic management school of thought often recommends that organisations model rather muddle. Modelling implies inventing and designing, imagination and vision and an element of control, where muddle implies reaction and a lack of control. Yet if the external environment is in a state of flux, and is evolving in a non-linear, unpredictable way, can we really expect organisations to perfectly plan and model their behaviours at all times?

One aspect of organisational evolution has been the emphasis that has been made in the recent past on the concept of the "learning organisation" and discussion of what characterises one. We are all used to the concept of continuous improvement (Kaizan), and that in itself Gavin [1993] "requires a commitment to learning". However, one might argue that at each cycle where continuous improvement is practised employees consider what and how a process is carried out. These employees then provide various hypotheses which are turned into specific rule sets or actions for how this particular process will be effected in future. So, the thought does become concrete in future guidelines and action.

But if the concept of learning is one of improving on what the organisation already does, then the idea of continuous improvement seems rather more of a pedestrian plod, than that of action with a dynamic feel. This does not seem sufficient when we are talking of learning organisations.

A review of the literature indicates little agreement as to what the term "learning organisation" really means. Peter Senge [1990] suggests that organisations are places "where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together". An idealistic viewpoint but sufficiently vague and expansive to allow for many different models to emerge and qualify for inclusion in the definition.

Other definitions such as that of Argyris [1977] suggest "organisational learning is a process of detecting and correcting error". Definitions of this type would seem to be more aligned to a total quality management approach than an expression of true organisational learning.

An alternative definition from Morgan [1997] suggests that the requirements of learning organisations are that they "scan and anticipate change in the wider environment … develop an ability to question, challenge and change operating norms and assumptions, allow an appropriate strategic direction and pattern of organisation to emerge". This definition, at the other extreme from Argyris seems more closely aligned with cybernetics and the ideas expressed in section 2 above.

So at this point Senge's definition induces a sufficiently imprecise impression to allow for a whole range of responses about what characterises a learning organisation and how any one company believes it qualifies as opposed to the many writers who have defined ways of actually doing it.

When considering organisational knowledge, and knowledge management what we need to ensure is that this is not seen simply as the acquisition of even more data and information than is presently the case. It is essential that some suggestions are promulgated to lead to organisational knowledge being used for timely decisions which lead (amongst other things) to true competitive advantage for the business. The emerging focus in management and systems literature on the importance of organisational knowledge is according to Prusak [1997] due to six changed specifics for organisations:

Allee [1977] discusses the shift in thinking associated with the shift in worldview from Newtonian to quantum and her table, shown below, allies traditional thinking concepts and ideas against new thinking ideas and concepts and the relevant assumptions that are made about managing and organisation.

Clearly effective use of organisational knowledge leads to the need for effective knowledge management, and both these concepts are likely to mean different things to different organisations. Here however, a new factor emerges, that of the human resource. Taylor [1998] suggests that the real problem is not acquiring that knowledge, but that "organisations will need the skills to interpret this material to make effective decisions", and that this can only be achieved with people. "People will be the biggest factor in determining the success or failure of knowledge management by the quality of their decisions". [Taylor 1998]

This view concurs with the last activity Garvin [1993] considers essential, 'transforming knowledge', when considering how to build a learning organisation.

Capturing data and being able to utilise that data to provide knowledge at the present time appears to centre around assumptions that organisations will use data warehousing and data mining techniques, or develop appropriate expert systems. It will be fascinating to discover whether the respondents to our questionnaire take a systems view of knowledge management, or whether they link it in various ways with the knowledge and skills of the employees in the organisation.

Quastler said that information might be used as a measure of organisation [1955]. This being so it follows that as (ideally) knowledge management systems should provide information to an organisation, in themselves such systems can be also used to measure an organisation's informational capability.

We have accordingly, decided to investigate a number of aspects of knowledge management systems and their relationships to learning in an organisation. It may be that not all learning organisations will have knowledge management systems that are expressly thought of as such. It thus becomes important through the questions we ask and the way that we undertake the research, to discover the real use and purpose of whatever information systems exist in the organisation, regardless of what the expressed purpose or use might be.

The first questions that we hope to answer through comprehensive literature research as well as through practical research are:

1. What are the concepts of the learning organisation?
2. What are the concepts of organisational knowledge?

Our initial research as shown above has provided us with some theoretical considerations and answers to these two questions that we can use to inform our practical research.

The second set of questions that we hope to answer through our research will, we hope, be answered both quantifiably as well as qualitatively utilising the research methods described below. These include such questions as:

1. How crucial is CIS and IT to supporting and developing organisational knowledge and learning?
2. What are the major areas of knowledge and learning that CIS and IT supports?
3. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that CIS and IT supports organisational knowledge and learning?

As we are particularly concerned with discovering if and how CIS and their supporting technology aid in the development of a learning organisation and its management of knowledge through information, we also want to explore the following issues:

In addition, as described in section 6 below, we expect the research to give rise to further issues and questions to explore and develop.

We therefore hope that at the end of the research study we should be able to provide some measures of an organisation's informational capability through their knowledge management systems and enable some classifications of organisations according to learning capability including identification of an organisation's understanding of its own learning capacity.

Bjørn-Andersen [1983] says that to understand the impact of information systems on an organisation it is necessary to consider five major areas. These are identified as:

1. Psychological factors
2. Organisational structure
3. Societal factors
4. Ethical and moral issues
5. Epistemological aspects. (meaning for example the full picture of how to build knowledge systems)

If there are at least these five aspects of impact, it follows that it must be important when researching into information systems including knowledge management systems, like those considered in this paper, that as many as possible of these aspects should be investigated.

Accordingly, this research project has identified those aspects of the organisation that it can research and the most appropriate research methods, given time, money and personnel constraints, to undertake this research.

It is our intention that this research should explore the points made by Walsham [1993] when he said that 'computer based information systems embody interpretive schemes in the sense that they provide ways of viewing the world and thus making sense of it. They also reflect norms and values concerning what are desirable states of the world or what can be achieved.' pp69 Knowledge management systems would seem to us to be the ultimate systems for reflecting on and sense-making in terms of what might, in any particular organisation, be considered information and its relationship to the external environment.

As shown above we have five major research questions, plus a number of issues that we wish to explore. To obtain a quantifiable response to some of the questions we have decided to undertake a straightforward questionnaire, in the traditional form, with answers ranked in Likert-type scales where appropriate. This will permit comparisons of such items as organisational size, and types of systems used. To allow for interpretative analysis of certain issues that are not quantifiable in the same way, we will encourage open-ended answers to particular questions. These will be analysed through qualitative means utilising a range of methods including text analysis. This will assist in triangulation of data as well as providing insights and theory evolution.

Ideally, we would like, as Walsham suggests, to undertake a longitudinal comparative case study, however due to time and funding constraints it is unlikely that we will be able to do this. However, we do intend to undertake some shorter term case study analysis as the uniqueness of individual cases and contexts is important to understanding. We hope by undertaking case study analysis over several organisations to discover patterns of unexpected as well as expected relationships between CIS and knowledge management. This would relate also to Evan's [1971] point that a single case study does not provide a basis for generalising particular findings to organisations, and that the generalisability of findings is enhanced through triangulation through a survey etc. The case study analysis will be undertaken through historical and documentary analysis, and both structured and unstructured interviewing of selected members of the organisation. A stakeholder analysis will be conducted as part of the preliminary construction of case histories, and stakeholder webs and interaction matrices, where appropriate, will be produced (see Coakes 1996 for details of webs and matrices).

It is our hope that through utilisation of the variety of methods mentioned above we shall be able to tackle most, if not all, of Bjørn-Andersen's considerations for the understanding of the impact of the CIS on knowledge management within the organisation.

This paper outlines the preliminary stage of thinking and research for this project.

Preliminary analysis of historical archival data and interview material relating to a number of University case studies has already commenced and is the subject of an article in progress. In addition, we are currently negotiating with a major professional organisation for the circulation of a questionnaire to a large database of organisations. The questionnaire is now under development and will be informed by reactions to this paper, the analysis of case study data (above) and to discussions that are being carried out with other potential collaborators.

The project team is now being staffed, and we are presently in the process of appointing a researcher to the team. Our intention is to be in a position to begin analysis and follow up interviews during the summer of 1999.

An extensive literature review has commenced, see section 6 above, and will continue to be updated and informed throughout the course of the project. As a result of the questionnaire we expect new issues to be raised and new avenues explored as the data is discovered. We intend to follow-up the questionnaire with interviews and further case study material analysis on a selected basis.

We also anticipate documenting our findings on an ongoing basis and to being in a position to draw some preliminary conclusions to our five main questions, outlined in section 5 above, by the autumn of 1999.

Allee V 'The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organisational Intelligence' Butterworth Heinemann USA 1997

Bjørn-Andersen N 'Challenge to Certainty' in IFIP WG8.2 Proceedings ed Th. Bemelmans MA Minneapolis Aug 1983

Çambel AB Applied Chaos Theory: A Paradigm for Complexity Academic Press Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1993

Coakes E 'Stakeholders and Systems in a Turbulent Environment' Proceedings of the 5^th European Conference on Information Systems ed Galliers, Carlsson, Loebbecke, Murphy, Hansen & O'Callaghan vol 3 pp1060-1068 1996

Evans WM Organisational Experiments: Laboratory and Field Research. Harper & Row, New York 1971

Garvin D Building a Learning Organisation HBR July-August 1993

Kauffman S At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-organisation and Complexity Viking 1995

Krishnamurti 4th Public Talk Madras 4 Jan 1981

Morgan G Images of Organisation Sage 1997

Muller J and Watts D 'Modelling and Muddling: The Long Route to New Organisations' European Management Journal 11 3 pp361-6 1993

Prusak L Knowledge in Organisations Butterworth-Heinemann 1997

Quastler H ed Information Theory in Biology Urbana University.

Illinois Press 1955

Senge P The Fifth Discipline New York: Doubleday p1 1990

Taylor D Knowledge Management - Hot Button or Hot Air? Computer Weekly 2 July 1998

Von Bertalanffy L 'The Theory of Open Systems in Physics and Biology '1950, in Systems Thinking ed Emery FE Penguin pp70-79 1966

Walsham G Interpreting Information Systems in Organisations Wiley Chichester 1993