139,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Information and communication technologies have increased their share of services in contemporary economic exchanges. We are witnessing a transformation of modern economies characterized by a predominant role of information and knowledge in the production of wealth. In order to make this intangible resource bear fruit, organizations are looking for ways, methods, procedures, processes and technical solutions to efficiently manage knowledge Within a framework of research into synergies and resource interdependence, organizations also rely on strategic alliances (joint venture), mergers or other legal forms of association that have an impact on knowledge management. This book explores the range of knowledge management techniques.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 322
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Introduction
Part 1: A Systemic Approach to the Organization Based on Knowledge Management and its Tools
1 Theoretical Anchoring of Knowledge
1.1. Individual knowledge and skills
1.2. From individual learning to organizational learning
1.3. Knowledge management
1.4. Knowledge management systems
1.5. Communities, teams and knowledge management
1.6. Knowledge management and cultures
2 The Design of the Learning Organization
2.1. From the systemic approach to the organizational design
2.2. Proposal of an organizational design for knowledge management: “learning organization design”
Part 2: Emergence of a New Design: that of the Learning Organization
3 Real-World Access Methodology
3.1. Methodological choices
3.2. The field of research
3.3. Data collection
3.4. Processing of the collected data
4 Case Study
4.1. Design of the learning organization SCCC (before the merger)
4.2. Design of the learning organization SCCC (period of merger with N)
4.3. Design of the learning organization NSN (post-merger)
4.4. Overview of the three phases
5 Emergence of a New Organizational Design
5.1. Emergence of a design of the learning organization
5.2. Emergence of a new organizational design in view of the impact of culture
5.3. Emergence of a new organizational design when faced with knowledge boundaries
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Introduction
List of Illustrations
1 Theoretical Anchoring of Knowledge
Figure 1.1. Data – information – knowledge
Figure 1.2. Links between data, information, knowledge and skill
Figure 1.3. The knowledge management cycle
2 The Design of the Learning Organization
Figure 2.1. Leavitt’s model [STO 92]
Figure 2.2. Star model [GAL 02b]
Figure 2.3. The learning organization design
3 Real-World Access Methodology
Figure 3.1. The company’s relations with the external environment
Figure 3.2. Internal relations between processes and other activities
Figure 3.3. The business process of “bid preparation”
Figure 3.4. The business process of “solution development”
List of Tables
1 Theoretical Anchoring of Knowledge
Table 1.1. The various definitions of knowledge
Table 1.2. Skill viewed as a process
Table 1.3. The main definitions of organizational learning
Table 1.4. Main definitions of the learning organization
Table 1.5. The main definitions of knowledge management
Table 1.6. The main definitions of an IS
Table 1.7. The functions of KMS depending on the activities of the process of knowledge management [ALA 01]
Table 1.8. The main definitions of organizational culture
2 The Design of the Learning Organization
Table 2.1. Definitions of a system
Table 2.2. Eleven-level hierarchy of systems
Table 2.3. Classification of publications about knowledge management
Table 2.4. Recap of the factors cited in the literature review
3 Real-World Access Methodology
Table 3.1. Incorporation of the SCCC units into the NSN structure
Table 3.2. Descriptions of the business processes in SCCC
Table 3.3. Data collection (overview)
4 Case Study
Table 4.1. Results from the three phases, compared against the factors derived from the literature and the emergent factors
Pages
C1
iii
iv
v
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
175
176
177
178
179
FOCUS SERIES
Series Editor Jean-Charles Pomerol
Organizational Design for Knowledge Management
Mona Ben Chouikha
First published 2016 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
27-37 St George’s Road
London SW19 4EU
UK
www.wiley.com
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111 River Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
www.iste.co.uk
© ISTE Ltd 2016
The rights of Mona Ben Chouikha to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015959667
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISSN 2051-2481 (Print)
ISSN 2051-249X (Online)
ISBN 978-1-84821-922-9
Introduction
Information and communication technology (ICT) has brought about an increase in the proportion of present-day financial exchanges accounted for by services1. We are witnessing a transformation of modern economies, characterized by a very significant role of information and knowledge in the creation of wealth2. Knowledge, in the broadest sense, including know-how, constitutes an intangible asset which has a genuine bearing on businesses’ survival. Made up of information and know-how, and connected to a context, knowledge gives rise to interpretation and reflection [DAV 98a]. Knowledge may equally be held by individuals [ALA 01] and by organizations [GRA 96b], for which it is an essential resource. Resource theory views knowledge as a strategic tool, which can lend companies a long-lasting competitive edge [PEN 59, BAR 91, TEE 97]. In order to draw benefit from this intangible resource, organizations look for means, methods, procedures, approaches and technical solutions to effectively manage knowledge [CON 96]. In the context of collaboration and interdependence of resources, organizations also make use of strategic alliances (joint ventures), mergers or other legal forms of association which have an impact on knowledge management [YOO 07, BEN 09a].
The process of knowledge management has been described as comprising multiple interlinked activities: gathering, storage, sharing, use and creation of new knowledge [DAV 98a, ZAC 99, CAR 04, BEN 09b]. However, this process is by no means without pitfalls and difficulties. To begin with, professionals dedicate a significant portion of their time and effort to gathering the information necessary to carry out their tasks. Moreover, inter- and intra-organizational mobility and the retirement of the “baby boom” generation entail the loss of skills and knowledge that are often vital for the organizations. In addition to these problems of knowledge-collection and preservation, there is that of knowledge transfer – a problem which is twofold. The first aspect pertains to the difficulty in transferring and distributing tacit knowledge. The second is linked to the tensions between the necessary tacit knowledge management and the behavior of the people who hold that knowledge. Also, these knowledge-management activities do not necessarily automatically lead to an improvement of the organization’s performances. The knowledge needs to be assimilated or adapted and applied in new scenarios [CAR 03]. However, it is recognized that there is a difference between what a person knows and what she or he can express and transfer to others. In this regard, Polanyi [POL 67] noted that “we can know more than we can tell”. Numerous possible solutions have been put forward to circumvent these difficulties. First of all, organizations tried to encode pieces of knowledge and store them in databases. There are two issues with this solution. To begin with, it is not possible to codify all knowledge – particularly when it comes to tacit knowledge – and second, access to the encoded information is not always easy, which can lead to considerable wastes of time. Next, solutions for knowledge management and collaborative working were proposed, with a view to remedying the shortcomings related to database use. These are knowledge-management systems (KMSs). These tools do seem to have been successful in improving knowledge management, according to Alavi and Leidner [ALA 01]. Nonetheless, there have also been numerous problems with their use, linked to organizational and individual characteristics [MAI 07, BEN 14, BEN 15a]. Thus, a large number of knowledge-management initiatives have failed to achieve their objectives because of the employees’ dislike for systematic sharing of knowledge [KAN 05]. Indeed, the time required to enter the data in order to contribute to knowledge bases is a major constraint with this approach [DAV 98a, ALA 01]. It has also been noted that employees were reticent to share their knowledge through such tools, for fear of being dispossessed of their skills and of therefore losing their employability [REN 08]. Consequently, KMSs are often underused [KAN 05].
The main obstacles to the development of knowledge management have been cataloged in the existing literature: a lack of commitment on the part of company directors, a low degree of motivation from the actors within the organization who either hold the knowledge or are potential users of it (largely due to the lack of an incentive system) and a cultural transformation – the difficulty in switching from a culture of compartmentalization and vertical circulation of information to a culture of sharing and trust. Furthermore, while ICT offers quicker access to more extensive and richer sources of knowledge, the fact remains that the holder and the user of a piece of knowledge must be involved personally in its sharing. Indeed, the knowledge holder, as the “teacher”, must be convinced of the advantage to exchanging and sharing his or her knowledge and skills [ROB 00] and the knowledge user, as the “knower”, must be convinced of the usefulness of assimilating and appropriating the knowledge held by others. The development of knowledge management cannot be reduced to an investment in technologies; it requires close collaborations between the general management, the human resource managers, the business department heads and IT managers, inspired by the desire to transform the organization’s practices [REI 04]. This transformation leads to a new professional culture. Although their technological capabilities are formidable, KMSs do not achieve their objectives, because insufficient attention is paid to the social and organizational aspects. Because knowledge (and especially tacit knowledge) lies in individuals’ memories and brains [ALA 01], movement of that knowledge is contingent upon those people’s motivation and behavior with a view to sharing it. This being the case, personal characteristics need to be taken into account in KMS projects.
The aim of this book is to gain an understanding of, and explain, the conditions which can favor and/or inhibit knowledge management in the organization. In order to do so, we shall identify the conditions in which knowledge can be created, formalized, exchanged and validated. These conditions must take account of the organizational structure, the sociocultural context and the technological infrastructure. Previous literature has focused on studying knowledge management from a particular angle of the organization: strategic, structural, cultural or technological.
By systemic integration, we catalog the determining factors in effective knowledge management. To do this, we draw inspiration from the organizational design [GAL 71, GAL 73, GAL 77, GAL 82, GAL 94, GAL 00a, GAL 00b, GAL 02a, GAL 02b].
In addition to a complete review of the literature on knowledge management, in this book, readers will find an answer to the following two questions:
What are the organizational conditions which facilitate and/or inhibit the development of knowledge management among the members of a project team?
What role is played, in this development, by KMSs?
To answer these two questions, we have adopted a systemic approach and, drawing upon Galbraith’s work of modeling [GAL 73, GAL 02b], which demonstrates interaction between five domains of design of the organization (strategy, incentivization systems, people, processes and structure), we have constructed our own model of a knowledge-oriented organization, called “learning organization design”.
As the content of this book is based on research projects, the problems and the results obtained have been validated by a cross-cutting case study [YIN 84, YIN 03b] carried out in a multinational (SCCC) which experienced a merger with a competitor (N) in the same domain. We use the acronym “NSN” to denote the group created by the merger of SCCC and N. Our access to the field for experimentation purposes took place in three stages:
– before the merger: SCCC;
– during the merger: SCCC and N;
– after the merger: creation of the company NSN.
Our research is rooted in the reality on the ground, in order to gain a fuller understanding of the context in which the actors are working and the meaning that they attach to their actions.
First of all, we have chosen to adopt two positions for the study: participative observation and non-participative (passive) observation, which offers a good understanding of the field, a rich dialog with the various people involved and privileged access to a certain amount of data, reflecting a multitude of different points of view [GIO 03]. Then, we opted for the method of analyzing the content of transcribed interviews [MIL 91]. To begin with, this involved analyzing the interviews one at a time, and then a second phase was a thematic analysis. The sequential analyses of each interview helped to identify all of the themes touched upon by the interviewees, and the thematic analysis of all the interviews enabled us to draw up a precise thematic dictionary.
One of the contributions of our research is the employment of Galbraith’s model [GAL 73, GAL 02b] in a domain which is truly crucial for organizations: knowledge management. We have integrated the definitive factors in a knowledge-management policy, extracted from a literature review, across the five dimensions of organizational design: strategy, incentivization systems, people, processes and structure.
Our analysis of knowledge management in three periods of an organization’s existence (before the merger, during the merger and post-merger), with regard to the same project teams working on the same matters (preparation of bids and elaboration of the solution), yielded results which both concur with and diverge from those demonstrated in the existing body of literature. Indeed, certain conditions put forward in the literature are borne out; others were contradicted; some were entirely absent and new conditions emerged from the field. In addition, when we analyzed the results of the three phases, it was noted that certain conditions are ambivalent.
We have been able to analyze this ambivalence through the lens of different aspects of the idea of culture: national, organizational and professional. Each of these different cultures has a specific kind of influence on individuals’ behavior in managing their knowledge. This result is another of the contributions of our research, both in the scientific domain and in organizations’ practices. Finally, our case study and the empirical analyses of the process of knowledge management in the organization can contribute to a deeper understanding of this phenomenon, because of the detailed elements it provides. In this way, the new model of organizational design – called the “learning organization design model” – constitutes an instrument that helps to better understand the different aspects of knowledge management in modern organizations.
This book is divided into five chapters (aside from the Introduction and Conclusion), which are arranged in two separate parts:
–
Part 1
is devoted to a review of the literature on knowledge management and the theoretical framework of our study – it comprises Chapters 1 and 2:
-
Chapter 1
defines the main concepts relating to the issue and lays out the theoretical foundations of knowledge management,
-
Chapter 2
begins by presenting the fundaments of our theoretical framework, using the system approach and the organizational design model, before going on to describe our conceptual model called the “learning organization design”;
–
Part 2
is made up of
Chapters 3
,
4
and
5
and presents a case study which facilitated the emergence of a new organizational design for the domain of knowledge management: the “learning organization design”:
-
Chapter 3
outlines the methodological choices, the field of research and the methods of data collection and processing,
-
Chapter 4
presents the empirical analyses and the results of the validation of our model during the three phases of our study (before the merger, during the merger and post-merger),
-
Chapter 5
discusses the results obtained, comparing them to the literature on knowledge management, and sets out the main conclusions of our work.
Finally, the general conclusion presents the contributions, the limitations and the prospects of our theoretical and empirical work for different academic and professional domains.
1
From the 1990s onward, the pace of international exchanges of services intensified. Thus, in the decade from 1990 to 2000, the average annual growth rate of such exchanges reached 6% [WTO 01], which is equal to that of goods exchanges. In 2007, services represented around 19% of world trade [WTO 08].
2
The proportion of activities linked to the immaterial (research, education, software industry, etc.) is tending to increase in the world economy [OCD 96]. Such is the case, for instance, in the United States, where the portion of expenses devoted to R&D activities has more than tripled between 1950 and 2000. In addition, between 1990 and 2000, the intensive activities in technology such as electronics, IT, telecommunications and biotechnologies experienced faster growth than the average in other sectors of the world economy [OCD 00].
Part 1A Systemic Approach to the Organization Based on Knowledge Management and its Tools
1Theoretical Anchoring of Knowledge
Resource theory views knowledge as a strategic asset [GRA 91, BAR 91]. Knowledge resources, which are distributed throughout the organization and are difficult to identify and imitate, are likely to offer a long-lasting competitive edge if used properly [KOG 92, NON 95]. Hence, knowledge appears to be a crucial resource for the organization which needs to be maintained and developed.
Information technology (IT) – for example Internet, Intranet, data warehouses, document management, databases and Groupware – offers improved possibilities to better manage knowledge [ROB 00].
In this chapter, we present the general framework of the research and precisely define what it is that we understand by “knowledge”.
First, it is imperative to draw the distinction between the various concepts – data, information, know-how, skill and knowledge – because numerous authors present them as being interlinked but differentiated, while others treat them as being the same thing.
Then, given that learning is a means of acquiring and developing knowledge, and that it is inconceivable to study knowledge without making reference to learning, the second section of the chapter is given over to how to make the transition from individual learning to organizational learning.
Then, in the next few sections, we shall examine the main activities making up the process of knowledge management, the tools supporting knowledge management and the human groups that constitute vectors for the development of knowledge.
Finally, the last section of this chapter will deal with the concept of culture, its presence within organizations in a variety of forms and its connection with knowledge management.
1.1. Individual knowledge and skills
The development of individual knowledge takes place in accordance with the following continuum: data → information → knowledge → skill [PES 06].
1.1.1. Data
According to the Larousse dictionary, “data is a conventional representation of a piece of information”. In this definition, there is no intention or agenda inherent in data1, which are codified in accordance with a convention, a natural language or a computer language. For example, when a transmitter uses a convention which the receiver does not understand, the message cannot be understood. According to Prax [PRA 00, PRA 07], data are discrete and objective facts resulting from an acquisition: a measurement taken by a natural or manmade instrument. They may be qualitative or quantitative and serve as the basis for reasoning or for other treatment processes.
1.1.2. Information
Larousse states that “information is any event, any fact, any judgment brought to the attention of a particular audience, of varying sizes, in the form of images, texts, discourse or sounds”. Information is a piece of data emitted by a transmitter, which makes a difference in that it can be interpreted and used by a receiver [BEN 08]. Indeed, for there to be information, the signal must be perceived and understood. The signal can also generate knowledge or help move forward in the solving of a problem [MAR 09]. In summary, “information is a difference which makes a difference” [BAT 08]. It is a means to construct knowledge, which is essentially linked to human action [NON 95].
Figure 1.1 illustrates the relations between the concepts of “data”, “information” and “knowledge”.
Figure 1.1. Data – information – knowledge
1.1.3. Knowledge
According to Larousse, “knowledge is what is acquired through study or practice”. Various definitions of knowledge have been put forward in the literature published hitherto. The most representative of these are presented in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1.The various definitions of knowledge
Authors
Definitions
Nonaka [NON 94]
Information is a medium necessary for the creation and formalization of knowledge, but information and knowledge are two representations which differ by virtue of where they are located: information is embedded in a message, whereas knowledge exists in human memory. All externalized knowledge becomes information, and all information, when it is interpreted and integrated by a human being, becomes knowledge. All the knowledge held by the individual can be used to help interpret the information received.
Davenport
et al.
[DAV 98b]
Knowledge is information combined with experience, context, interpretation and reflection.
Alavi and Leidner [ALA 01]
On the one hand, knowledge is personalized information, linked to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations and judgments. On the other hand, it is the result of a cognitive process.
Carlile [CAR 02a]
Knowledge is a resource which is both critical and difficult to manage. At once, it may be a source of and a barrier to innovation.
In the domain of knowledge management, numerous authors agree that knowledge is different from data, information and skill [BOH 94, VAN 97, FAH 98, PRA 00]. Indeed, knowledge is a more complex notion, in that it simultaneously expresses that which is known and the capacity to make use of that information: savoir-faire (or “know-how”).
Knowledge is a set of schemas – that is dynamic cognitive structures pertaining to concepts, entities or events. These schemas, which are used by the individual to efficiently interpret information, guide the search for, acquisition of and processing of information. They also condition behavior in response to that information. Thus, schemas provide a ready-made system of knowledge. Knowledge is made up of routines which we are able to execute and rules of use indicating when and how to use those routines. More specifically, we can distinguish two types of knowledge: explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge:
– Knowledge, be it explicit or formalized, can be transmitted without loss of integrity through written or oral discourse. For instance, formalized knowledge is the knowledge contained in books or delivered by educational systems. It may just as well be a blueprint or a procedural manual as the content of a database. This codified knowledge can be described and specified in terms of content and intellectual property [COW 97]. It can also be sequential, digital and rationality based, according to Nonaka and Takeuchi [NON 95].
– Tacit knowledge, which is difficult or even impossible to express in a discourse, is not communicated through language. Usually acquired through practice, tacit knowledge often corresponds to contextual situations, to values and implicit standards. This practical knowledge exists at individual level (as an individual’s
savoir-faire
) and collective level (e.g. the routines used in the organization and arising from repeated practice). The essential characteristic of tacit knowledge is that it is difficult to pass on, because it is hard to separate the knowledge from the knowledge holder and from its use context. It is acquired through imitation and/or experimentation in a certain context. As specified by Nonaka [NON 94], tacit knowledge includes cognitive elements, schemas, beliefs and mental models defining our view of things and technical elements corresponding
savoir-faire
anchored in specific contexts of action. Polanyi [POL 67] explains that tacit knowledge is personal, closely linked to a given context and, therefore, difficult to transfer.
In Polanyi’s view, the tacit and explicit dimensions coexist within any piece of knowledge. The tacit knowledge forms the background which is indispensable to define the structure necessary for the development and interpretation of the explicit knowledge.
This duality (tacit and explicit), introduced by Polanyi [POL 67], has been drawn upon by many authors in discussing the more or less communicable nature of knowledge. For example, Nonaka [NON 91] proposed a dynamic model of the conversion of knowledge from a tacit to an explicit form, and vice versa, known as the “knowledge spiral”. Hildreth and Kimble [HIL 02], for their part, note that these two forms of knowledge should not be viewed in opposition to one another, but rather that it is preferable to envisage knowledge with its dual nature. For Nonaka [NON 94], the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and vice versa is necessary for the process of knowledge creation.
1.1.4. Skill
There have been many books published on skill which sometimes confuse skill with knowledge.
We can distinguish two categories of works on this topic: those given over to the identification of categories of skills and those devoted to the description of the processes of skill acquisition.
1.1.4.1. Categories of skills
Katz [KAT 74] distinguishes three types of skills:
– conceptual skills (analyzing, understanding, acting systematically) – that is knowledge, or “
savoir
”;
– technical skills (methods, processes, procedures, specialist techniques) – that is know-how, or
“savoir-faire”;
– human skills in intra- and interpersonal relations – that is existential knowledge, or “
savoir-être”.
In Dejoux’s view [DEJ 01], three categories of skills coexist:
– declarative skills;
– procedural skills such as
savoir-faire;
– diversification skills or judgment skills.
Le Boterf [LEB 01, LEB 02] is at the junction between these two schools of thought, adopting a process-oriented vision and describing the components of skill. In his view, skill is the mobilization or activation of multiple pieces of knowledge, in a given situation and context. This leads him to distinguish six categories of knowledge:
– theoretical knowledge: the ability to understand and to interpret;
– procedural knowledge: knowing how to proceed;
– procedural know-how: knowing what to do and how to operate;
– experience-based know-how: knowing what must be done and how to operate;
– social know-how: knowing how to behave and how to conduct oneself;
– cognitive know-how: knowing how to handle information, how to reason; being able to verbalize what we are doing and to learn.
1.1.4.2. Skill: a process
Numerous authors consider skill to be a process. Table 1.2 presents some of the contributions pertaining to this view of skill.
Table 1.2.Skill viewed as a process
Authors
Definitions
Samurçay and Pastré [SAM 95]
Skill, as the subject’s relation with working situations, explains the performance observed by describing the organization of knowledge constructed at work and for the purpose of work.
Cabin [CAB 99]
Skill is latent and is only exercised in a given situation. It is not a state or a possessed piece of knowledge but, instead, is a dynamic process which results from the interaction between several types of
savoirs:
knowledge,
savoir-faire, savoir-être
and cognitive functions.
de Terssac [DET 96]
Skill is an intermediary notion which allows us to think about the relations between the work and the knowledge held by individuals.
Prax [PRA 00]
Skill results from the concrete application of knowledge to a particular situation. This requires there to be an evaluative framework and a third-party evaluator.
Le Boterf [LEB 01, LEB 02]
Skill is the mobilization or activation of multiple pieces of knowledge, in a given situation and context.
Beyou [BEY 03]
Skill is the ability to effectively employ knowledge in a given context to produce successful action.
Thus, skills are:
– finalized: they have a purpose or objective;
– operational: they are effective, which is to say they are employed for specific tasks;
– learnt: they are acquired by various methods and in various forms (training, practice in an activity, etc.).
The concept of knowledge is usually considered to be one of the components of skill. Indeed, knowledge sits between information and skill [PES 06]. In the view of these authors, skills are the final link in a chain, beginning with data, which give rise to information, which produce knowledge, which is integrated into skills (Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2. Links between data, information, knowledge and skill
Individual skills are the abilities to combine and use the knowledge and savoir-faire acquired to deal with situations at work and obtain the expected results. Aptitude, which primarily pertains to people (qualities and capabilities, whether or not they are used), does not necessarily translate into skills. Potential is the set of acquired skills which would enable a person to adapt to new contexts and new situations. The development of individual skills is aimed at the acquisition of savoir-faire, knowledge and professional behavior, by an organized, gradual advancement, to enable someone to slowly deal with new professional situations [SAM 95]. In an organization, individual skills can be specified by using a referential framework of the positions involved in the company.
1.2. From individual learning to organizational learning
Individual learning is the basis for the development of collective skills, and the behavior of individuals can influence the effects of learning in the organization [ARG 78]. In addition, individual learning serves as the foundation for organizational learning which, in turn, feeds into further individual learning [ARG 96]. We shall now go on to analyze individual learning and organizational learning in turn.
1.2.1. Individual learning
Individual learning is an individual’s ability to carry out a task under the influence of the interactions with its environment. Researchers began by focusing on the individual aspects of knowledge and learning, before turning their attention to the organizational dimensions of these phenomena.
The study of individual learning has given rise, first, to a variety of pedagogical approaches and, second, to the conception of different learning styles.
1.2.1.1. Pedagogical approaches
The pedagogical approaches arise from work in psychology and pertain to individual learning from the viewpoint of trainers or teachers. We can distinguish three types of pedagogical approaches: the behaviorist approach [SKI 74], the cognitivist approach and the constructivist approach [PIA 79].
1.2.1.1.1. Behaviorism
This approach places emphasis on the external factors in learning: rewards, sociocultural factors, language and the socioeconomic environment [SKI 74]. Impossible to observe, individual mental models may be influenced by the outside world by training and by positive reinforcement (rewards) or negative reinforcement (punishments). The environment is the key element in determining and accounting for human behavior. The individual and his/her own personal representative model are not known to external observers, but they are of crucial importance in knowledge acquisition.
1.2.1.1.2. Cognitivism2
This approach reconsiders the above-mentioned environmentalist idea, enriching it with internal factors such as intellectual abilities and personal outlooks. Leading to a modification of the mental structures as experience is gained, learning occurs in different ways, both by sudden understanding (the penny drops) and by the activity of memorization. Given that acquisitions do not necessarily entail the actual emergence of new behaviors, learning takes place when there is acquisition of knowledge giving rise to potential behaviors. Thus, learning lies in the potential for certain behaviors.
1.2.1.1.3. Constructivism
This approach, which was developed in response to behaviorism, emphasizes independent discovery and the importance of trial and error in the act of learning [PIA 79].
The construction of knowledge takes place by action and explanation of the learners’ ideas. The individual does not simply receive data as a passive addressee; instead s/he selects and assimilates the data s/he wants to learn about. Following this pedagogical train of thought, learning is not the result of the imprints that sensory stimulations leave in the learner’s mind, nor is it the result of conditioning by the environment. Instead, it arises from the learner’s activity, whether his/her capacity for action is actual or symbolic, matricial or verbal. This capacity for action of the subject, which arises from personal mental representations, is the result of a dynamic process of finding a balance between the subject and his/her environment. This process may take the form of assimilation or accommodation of the intellectual structures. According to this view, learning is a process of knowledge creation by transformation of one’s experience. When faced with a new situation, the subject tries to maintain a balance by integrating that situation into his/her existing mental models (assimilation). When assimilation is not enough to understand the situation, “accommodation” involves the altering of those existing cognitive representations to accommodate the new experience. This process is comparable to the mechanisms of exploitation and exploration identified by March [MAR 91] in organizations.
1.2.1.2. Learning styles
The learning process constitutes a cycle which connects thought and action, involving two forms of knowledge acquisition linked to thought and two modes of transformation of the experience linked to action. The four stages in the cycle, in fact, represent the aptitudes required to learn and to solve problems. Thus, four learning styles, based on the pedagogical approaches seen earlier, were defined by Kolb [KOL 84]: assimilation, accommodation, divergence and convergence.
1.2.1.2.1. Assimilation
Assimilation is a learning style characterized by two abilities: reflective observation and abstract conceptualization. The individual tends toward inductive reasoning and tends to have an interest in ideas, abstract concepts, analysis and logic. The strengths of somebody with this learning style are the ability to create theoretical models and learn from his/her mistakes. Weaknesses are a disinterest in realistic solutions and application of theories, the tendency toward reverie and indifference to other people.
1.2.1.2.2. Accommodation
Accommodation is a learning style characterized by active experimentation and concrete experience. In this case, the individual likes doing things, making plans and designing experiments. Strengths associated with such people are their ability to act and react as a function of the facts. Weaknesses are not only impatience and activism but also – because of their perhaps immoderate taste for action – a tendency to do things pointlessly.
1.2.1.2.3. Divergence
Divergence is a learning style characterized by concrete experience and reflective observation. In this case, the individual likes imagining things and approaching concrete situations from a multitude of perspectives. Their strengths are their ability to understand multiple points of view and recognize the possibilities for action in a given context. The main weaknesses of this learning style lie in the difficulty in making decisions, a tendency to become emotionally invested and to ignore or deny conflicts.
1.2.1.2.4. Convergence
Convergence is a learning style which is characterized by abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. In this case, the individual likes applying ideas to concrete situations, finding the right solution, reasoning in a hypothetical-deductive manner, focusing on objects and technique. Strengths for these people are their ability to concentrate their efforts on solving a problem and establishing a plan of action. Their weaknesses lie in their overly hasty choice of a solution, which may lead to the incorrect solution of the problem and a tendency to focus too much on techniques.
1.2.1.3. Learning loops and conscious states
In addition to this presentation of the process of individual learning, it is helpful to tie in the concept of levels of learning loops (single-loop and double-loop learning, etc.) and that of conscious states [PRA 97].
The first-level (primary) loop leads to the solution of a problem without the established rules being challenged. The secondary loop comes into play when, in order to solve a problem, it is necessary to critically re-examine the usual structures and rules. A tertiary loop is involved when the very way in which the structures and rules are developed needs to be re-examined. Another aspect of the learning process pertains to the individual’s conscious state regarding his/her own knowledge. At the first level, the individual is not aware (conscious) of his/her state of ignorance. In the professional and organizational context, therefore, there is an initial condition which is absolutely crucial in order to begin the learning process: the individuals must not feel threatened by revealing their own state of ignorance. By becoming aware of that state of ignorance, they are then able to engage in the learning process. At the end of the learning process, the individual is conscious of the knowledge that has been acquired. Hence, as the acquired knowledge is activated, s/he will achieve greater dexterity and efficiency and adopt automatic behaviors in carrying out the activity.
1.2.2. Organizational learning
The notion of organizational learning, introduced by Simon in the 1950s, has been the subject of numerous publications – often mutually contradictory. According to one view, organizations do not “think” and do not “learn”: it is the individuals who learn [MAR 75, SIM 91]. In the view of other researchers, individuals learn individually, but their learning reflects their social context. Thus, organizational learning is more than just the sum of the individual learning [CAR 03]. Teece and Pisano [TEE 94] note that learning is essentially a social process. The internal context influences behavior, cognition, interpersonal processes and group dynamics.
