Project action learning (PAL) guidebook practical learning in organizations

It isinvariably made up of individuals with different aspirations and expectations driven by personal goals which may not be always aligned with the organizational goals.Moreover, we als

Kris M Y Law · Kong Bieng Chuah Editors

Practical Learning in Organizations

Project Action Learning

(PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations

123

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part

of the material is concerned, speci fically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on micro films or in any other physical way, and transmission

or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made The publisher remains neutral with regard

to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional af filiations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is about a tried and tested way of organizational learning which we calledProject Action Learning or PAL since its inception in the early 2000s It is theculmination of the learning the authors have collectively achieved through years ofcase-based action research of PAL implementation in real industrial environments.The authors are most thankful to the collaborations and cooperations of theindustrial enterprises and people who participated in this long-running longitudinalresearch that spanned over 16 years This book may not be quite the“step-by-stephow to do it” guidebook, but we hope it serves a useful reference for practitioners oforganizational learning and development.

A well-run modern organization has in place operating systems that include stafftraining and development This may fulfil the needs of single-loop learning that willhelp to maintain its existing operations But it is often inadequate to help anorganization today to remain competitive let alone to raise its capability to copewith changes in technology and environment Hence, we have seen the birth of theconcepts of organizational learning and learning organization over three decadesago Much has since been written but proven cases of real implementation are stillfew and less than enlightening

For a rational person, it is commonly known that improvement starts with theacknowledgement of a problem Knowledge is gained, and learning is achievedthrough the process of analysing and solving it The same could apply to anorganization

However, an organization is only superficially an organism by analogy It isinvariably made up of individuals with different aspirations and expectations driven

by personal goals which may not be always aligned with the organizational goals.Moreover, we also know that effective learning does not happen all the time, be

it in an individual or an organization, especially the latter The intrinsic or extrinsicmotivations needed to overcome and sustain individual learning inertia are rela-tively easier to come by There are many individual lifelong learners in any era and

in every society The same cannot be said of organizational learning and learningorganizations

v

To affect an organization’s learning capability, particularly with regard todouble-loop learning, we must re-mould an organization’s long-standing, tradi-tional, run-of-the-mill staff training and development practices.

We mustfind a way to instil action learning Small groups of staff working onself-initiated meaningful projects are the basis of this action learning This is thePAL way described in this book

We must have a visible organizational learning strategy that will overcomeorganizational defensive mechanism of individual staff and who will, in turn, bepersuaded to embrace the PAL way Our experience suggests the PAL-drivenorganizational learning can be introduced and propagated in a wave-like manner

To complement this PAL-driven organizational learning strategy, we must put inplace performance measures and incentives that will motivate individuals to initiateand take up such action learning that would be aligned with organizational needsand goals

We must have an overarching mechanism and resources in place that will vide facilitation and support to sustain the wave-like implementation of PAL-drivenorganizational learning

pro-Just as importantly, we must have an organizational management and mation system that will support organizational learning knowledge accumulation,dissemination and re-use

infor-These are what we call the four pillars of PAL The PAL story is essentiallyabout the building up of these four PAL pillars

We believe PAL is a proven vehicle that will take an organization down the path

of organizational learning The wave-like implementation over time will pave theway towards the ideals of a learning organization

Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong Kong Bieng Chuah

Part I Fundamentals of Organizational Learning and Learning

Organizations

1 What Is Organizational Learning? 3

Kong Bieng Chuah and Kris M Y Law

2 Organizational Learning for Value Creation 15

Kris M Y Law and Shuang Geng

3 Factors in Organizational Learning 25

Kris M Y Law and Chris R Cao

4 Organizational Learning Process as DELO 35

Kris M Y Law and Kong Bieng Chuah

Part II Building a Learning Organization

5 Project Based Action Learning as the Vehicle 53

Kris M Y Law and Kong Bieng Chuah

6 Setting for a PAL Driven OL 61

Kris M Y Law, Kong Bieng Chuah and Chris R Cao

7 Knowledge in PAL 75

Kris M Y Law and Shuang Geng

Part III Setting the PAL Driven LO

8 Stage 0—Preparing a PAL Driven OL 89

K F Kwong and Y C Chau

9 Stage 1—Starting the PAL 103

C K Cheung

vii

10 Stage 2—Facilitating and Evaluating PAL 111

Chris R Cao and Kris M Y Law 11 Stage 3—Closing PAL and PAL Knowledge 121

Kris M Y Law and Shuang Geng 12 Postscripts: 16-Years Journey of PAL, What Is Next? 129

Kris M Y Law Appendix A: Forms of PAL Evaluations 135

Appendix B: Project Stakeholder-Task-File Triads 143

Appendix C: Role Instrument 147

Appendix D: Readiness Check 155

Appendix E: OLSS Checklist 159

Appendix F: PAL Application Forms 161

Appendix G: F/W/C PAL Evaluation Instrument 165

About the Editors

Dr Kris M Y Law is currently the associate professor

in engineering management and education, in the School

of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia She alsoholds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in theDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management,Oulu University, Finland

She obtained her Ph.D in organizational learning andM.Phil in machining processes as well afirst degree inindustrial engineering, at the City University of HongKong, Hong Kong She undertook a postdoctoral researchscholarship in the National Taiwan University on aregional high-tech industry study and took up a visitingresearcher position at the Graduate Institute of IndustrialEngineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011).Her expertise lies in organizational learning anddevelopment (OLD), technological innovation andentrepreneurship (TIE), engineering education and smartindustrial initiatives (SII) She has been invited as a vis-iting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan,Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has beenactive as a professional OL consultant promoting ProjectAction Learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations.Her publications include books, chapters and journalarticles (SCI and SSCI indexed)

ix

Dr Kong Bieng Chuah is Associate Professor ofSystems Engineering and Engineering Department,City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong He is acore faculty member of the engineering doctorate,M.Sc engineering management and B.Eng industrialengineering and engineering management programmes.His current teaching and research focus on projectmanagement and project-based organizational learning.

He is a consultant in project management and zational learning and conducts project managementcourses and workshops for industries In his earlieryears, he was a mechanical engineer with expertise inengineering metrology and surface roughness charac-terization He advised on engineering measurementproblems and calibration set-ups

organi-Contributors

Chris R Cao Crest View Technology Investment Ltd, Hong Kong SAR, China

Y C Chau City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

C K Cheung Acrathon Precision Technologies, Kwun Tong, Hong KongKong Bieng Chuah Department of System Engineering and EngineeringManagement, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong KongShuang Geng College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China

K F Kwong PuraPharm International (H.K.) Ltd., Hong Kong, Hong KongKris M Y Law School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

Fig 1.1 The body of knowledge in OL 5

Fig 1.2 Deutero learning 10

Fig 2.1 The SECI knowledge creation process by Nonaka 17

Fig 2.2 Knowledge creation system architecture 18

Fig 2.3 Knowledge recommender system architecture 21

Fig 3.1 The DELO organizational learning process 26

Fig 3.2 Levels of learning and influencing factors 27

Fig 3.3 The synergy of collective learning in organization 27

Fig 4.1 The process of organizational learning and corresponding “influencers” (Law and Chuah 2015) 36

Fig 4.2 Theoretical model for the study of organizational learning 37

Fig 4.3 The seven forces of learning model (Jashapara 2003) 40

Fig 5.1 Project-team action learning framework (PAL) 55

Fig 5.2 Setting PAL goals 56

Fig 5.3 Learning within PAL 56

Fig 5.4 Intra- and inter-learning in PAL 57

Fig 6.1 PAL and supporting environment 62

Fig 6.2 LOFT facilitation in PAL 63

Fig 6.3 A problem driven OL facilitation approach 66

Fig 6.4 A PAL facilitation model for PAL driven OL 66

Fig 7.1 Knowledge development in the intra-project learning process 77

Fig 7.2 Knowledge development at Inter-project learning 78

Fig 7.3 Project taskflow 80

Fig 7.4 KM activities and project triad 80

Fig 7.5 KM and“project evaluation and selection” 81

Fig 7.6 PAL integrated with knowledge-based decision making 83

Fig 8.1 Steps for realizing the PAL supporting pillars 92

Fig 8.2 Multi-level system modelling of the OLSS (Kwong et al 2011) 94

Fig 8.3 Conceptual process model for OLSS 96

xi

Fig 8.4 Schematic diagram of the initiation phase (1–2 weeks) 96

Fig 8.5 Schematic diagram of the facilitation phase (12–14 weeks) 98

Fig 8.6 Schematic diagram of the evaluation phase (*10 weeks) 98

Fig 9.1 Project initiation process 104

Fig 9.2 The PAL project life cycle 106

Fig 9.3 Wave-like approach of PAL implementation 106

Fig 9.4 Supporting resources at various project phases 109

Fig 10.1 Enabling in-depth dialogue in PAL teams 114

Fig 10.2 PAL reflection flow chart 117

Fig 10.3 The process of using the F/W/C based OL evaluation instrument 118

Fig 11.1 OLSS functional modules and PAL stages 123

Fig 12.1 The early stage of PAL development and implementation (i.e 2002–2005) (from Law and Chuah 2019) 130

Fig 12.2 PAL-driven OL journey in the case company from 2000 to 2010 131

Fig 12.3 PAL-driven OL journey in the case company between 2011 and 2017 131

Fig 12.4 Overview of the four pillars progress in the PAL journey (2000–2017) 132

Table 4.1 Fields in the F/W/C driven PAL performance model 45

Table 6.1 Comparisons and contrasts between three types of facilitators 65

Table 6.2 Evaluations of PAL 68

Table 7.1 Project evaluation perspectives, criteria and sub-criteria 84

Table 8.1 Roles of management and facilitation team in readiness check 93

Table 8.2 Sub-modules involved in different PAL phases 99

Table 10.1 Ground rules for PAL meetings 115

Table 10.2 PAL reflection framework 116

Table 11.1 Post PAL review tasks 122

Table 11.2 New knowledge created in PAL process 125

Table 11.3 New knowledge storage in PAL process 126

xiii

Fundamentals of Organizational Learning

and Learning Organizations

What Is Organizational Learning?

Kong Bieng Chuah and Kris M Y Law

Abstract Organizational learning (OL) is an expansive and diverse field with

influ-ences that involves sociology, psychology, philosophy, business management, andmany others disciplines While there is no one definition to this concept, the concept

of organizational learning is commonly described a process of developing, ing, and transferring knowledge within an organization This chapter provides anoverview on the various notions of organizational learning, from the different the-oretical perspectives The association of OL and knowledge management (KM) isalso discussed

retain-1.1 Organizational Learning as a Developmental Strategy

Business conditions of the nowadays market, are demanding due to the challenging market competition and fast pace of technological advancement Theconcept of OL and LO has been accepted by organizations keen on developing andcreating an environment to support learning, especially the knowledge-oriented orga-nizations (Lynn et al.2000) Be it an individual or an organization, the ability to makegood use of knowledge comes with sufficient level of understanding and experience.Such understanding and experience can only be brought about by a conscious process

ever-of learning and application It is not surprising that many managers, entrepreneurs aswell as researchers in the West have been paying increasing attention to the conceptand importance of Organizational Learning (OL) and Learning Organization (LO).Since the late 1980s, the concepts of organizational learning (OL) and learningorganization (LO) has prospered and have been defined as the process of acquir-ing, distributing, integrating, and creating information and knowledge within an

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

K M Y Law and K B Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_1

3

organization Organizational development involves attitudes and mindset changesand the purpose of organizational learning is to adapt to changing environments,adjusting due to uncertain conditions, and improving efficiency.

Organization is a place where individuals gather, where a project team or hybridproject-team structure is usually adopted in an LO The project-based structure isadopted by the whole company or specifically applied to certain units or groups withinthe organization, where team concept and team performance are highly valued andrelied upon

Team learning has been gaining importance as an OL approach, it has been welldocumented and extensively studied (Flood et al.2001; Katzenbach and Smith1993;Meyer1994; Senge1990; Teare et al.2002; Poell and Van der Krogt2003) Senge(1990) explained that organization or team performance improvement is a result

of collective intelligence of an organization or a team, which exceeds the sum ofintelligence of individuals

1.2 Notions of Organizational Learning and Learning

Organization

The origin of the concentrated study of organizational learning can be back to the late1970s, when researchers studied OL from a psychological perspective Key advances

in this field include:

• Cyert and March (1963) described the adaptation and routines of organizationallearning;

• Argyris (1978) developed the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning;

• Dutton and Thomas (1984) defined learning curves in organizations

The study of OL, thereafter, has focused on different fields, including: tivity of individual learning; processes or systems; culture or metaphor; knowledgemanagement; continuous improvement Since the late 80s in the 20th century, theconcept of OL and LO has prospered and has been used in various fields, such as:

collec-• Organizational learning involves the process of acquiring, distributing, integrating,and creating information and knowledge within an organization (Dixon1992)

• Organizational learning involves attitudes and mindset changes (Smith1999)

• Organizational learning is to adapt to changing environments, adjusting underuncertain conditions, and improving efficiency successfully (Dodgson1993).Current literature on OL have different focuses, namely, learning motivation,collective or team learning; learning process or system; learning culture; knowledgemanagement, organizational development and continuous improvement (Wang andAhmed2003) Besides the different focus areas, OL is also described as “process-focusing” where learning is an “innate, ongoing process” in organizations (Pedlerand Aspinwall1998; Law and Chuah2015)

The bodies of knowledge involved in the scope of OL are of various perspectives(Fig.1.1) These areas are raised from a series of ‘central’ What and How questions:

1 WHAT is OL?

2 WHAT is OL process?

3 WHAT are the factors influencing?

4 HOW can OL be adopted or implemented?

To respond to the above central questions, various focuses in OL study are tified:

iden-• the cores constituting the definition of OL:

a the levels of learning

b levels of knowledge and the knowledge process

• the processes of OL

• the influencing factors

• the learning approaches and facilitations

Process of OL

Influencing factors

Learning approach and facilitation

Fig 1.1 The body of knowledge in OL

1.2.1 Perspectives of Organizational Learning

Much about OL has been studied and written, during the last three decades, on specificsubjects such as system dynamics (Senge1990), action-based learning (Argyris andSchon1978,1996; Smith and O’Neil2003) group process, personal creative process,and collective decision and action (Issacs1993)

Some researchers believed that OL is a natural tendency of an organization fighting

to survive (Kim1993) Other thought that it is not only a form of learning or just aprescribed set of processes in the theory of levels of learning in organizations, butrather a philosophy of organizational development (Argyris and Schon1996).Over the years, some theories of OL became conceptually more complex andothers more specialized Like,

• Senge (1990), who considers OL from a system perspective,

• Nonaka (1994) focuses on the interchange of knowledge in organizations

On the other hand, some authors prescribe OL as existing processes involvingactivities and means that organizations use to organize knowledge with the expecta-tion of a higher level of its usage that lead to greater competitiveness (Fulmer et al

1998; Pemberton et al.2001)

For these authors, OL is a process by which individuals accumulate and extendknowledge based on their past experiences and their perceptions, share, and propagate

it in ways that help an organization to develop (Roth and Kleiner1998; Lynn et al

2000; Garratt1999; Atul and Glen2001; Örtenblad2004)

1.2.2 Multi-disciplinary Approach of Organizational

Learning

There is a wide range of beliefs of thinking about what OL is, how it occurs, and how

it is applied and how it influences organization development Organizational learning

is an expansive and diverse field with influences on sociology, psychology, ophy, business management, and many others disciplines There is no overarchingframework, which cohesively pulls together all theoretical advances into a unifiedtheory A multi-disciplinary approach is therefore an appropriate way to study thecomplexity of OL

philos-Organizational learning (OL) is described as a conscious organizational goaldriven process, with individuals as the learning agents for the organization A pre-dominant view of OL is the ‘double loop’ learning concept, which has been shaped

by several advances in social sciences and system theories (Argyris and Schon1978).The essential feature of this primary learning approach was the notion of envision-ing Great emphasis was put on describing the human process of “action learning”through experience via various feedback mechanisms interacting with everyone’ssets of beliefs

The organizational learning theory is commonly described a process of oping, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization One the mostinfluential concepts in the organizational learning theory is the notion that we learnfrom our mistakes This idea was developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon, whosuggested that learning takes place through the process of detecting and correctingerrors From this perspective, organizational learning occurs as a result of experienceand an organization is said to have learned from an experience when there is a change

devel-in the organization’s behaviour or performance

The robust use of ideas emanated from system thinking, was clearly expounded

in Senge’s five disciplines (Senge1990) Senge proposed five core disciplines for

LO, for which he claimed the five disciplines represents a lifelong body of study andpractice for individuals and teams in organizations (Senge1992)

1 Personal Mastery

This discipline of aspiration involves formulating a coherent picture of the resultspeople most desire to gain as individuals (their personal vision), alongside a realisticassessment of the current state of their lives today (their current reality) Learning

to cultivate the tension between vision and reality (represented in this icon by therubber band) can expand people’s capacity to make better choices, and to achievemore of the results that they have chosen

2 Mental Models

This discipline of reflection and inquiry skills is focused around developing ness of the attitudes and perceptions that influence thought and interaction By con-tinually reflecting upon, talking about, and reconsidering these internal pictures ofthe world, people can gain more capability in governing their actions and decisions

aware-3 Shared Vision

This collective discipline establishes a focus on mutual purpose People learn tonourish a sense of commitment in a group or organization by developing sharedimages of the future they seek to create (symbolized by the eye), and the principlesand guiding practices by which they hope to get there

4 Team Learning

This is a discipline of group interaction Through techniques like dialogue and ful discussion, teams transform their collective thinking, learning to mobilize theirenergies and ability greater than the sum of individual members’ talents

1.3 Organizational Learning and Knowledge

Much of an organization’s knowledge resides in its people, and much of the learning issocially constructed and specific in context OL has the features of creating, retaining,and transferring knowledge

Learning organizations aim to transform old behaviours and patterns of thinking

as well as to improve skill and know-how to adapt to the challenging dynamic ronment Thus, learning involves the linking up of knowledge, know-how systems,structures, and processes (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995,2006) Ideally, employeesare willing to learn systematically and intensively OL occurs as a result of experi-ence and an organization is said to have learned from an experience when there is

envi-a chenvi-ange in the orgenvi-anizenvi-ation’s behenvi-aviour or performenvi-ance The envi-acquired envi-and shenvi-aredknowledge becomes embedded in the routines and practices through the repeatedrounds of experiences by individual members Organizational knowledge is inter-preted, aggregated, and shared at the organizational level in the organization This iscoherent with the concept advocated by action learning, contributing to the centralconcept of this book, project-based action learning (PAL)

1.4 Individuals in LO

Learning does not take place solely within groups in an organization With sis on empowering of individuals to act, action learning therefore fosters OL byallowing effective learning to take place within organizations at both individual andorganizational levels (Revans1982,1983; Garvin1994)

empha-To facilitate the learning between individuals, team learning is the central issue

of concern The range of OL literature covers development of OL tools to improveteam communication such as dialogue, the effect of learning histories, leadershipstyles and management techniques, the role of organizational goal and strategy andthe process of knowledge management etc

OL is a process that needs all the usual functions of management i.e planning,resourcing, directing, monitoring, evaluation and controlling For OL to be useful andeffective there must be leadership and commitment from the management togetherwith motivation and effort from the individual staff Most of all, the goal of OLmust be clear to everyone The goal of OL must be seen not only to add value to thedevelopment and improvement of the organization but also to benefit every individualstaff in some perceivable way

1.5 Levels of Learning Within LO

Some OL theories treat OL as a conscious organizational goal-driven process, withindividuals as the learning agents for the organization (Argyris and Schon 1996;Örtenblad2004) These emphases of learning at different levels within an organi-zation however, contribute to the elusiveness of the definition of OL (Weick1991,

1996)

The paradox of OL is that it is not merely the sum of individual learning(Argyris and Schon 1978), but the learning at different levels within an organi-zation directed towards some pre-set organizational goal Distinct approaches to OL,include behavioural learning and cognitive learning (Foil and Lyles1985; Yeo2002,

2003,2006):

• Cognitive development is the organizational change that affects the interpretation

of events and the shared understanding among organizational members (Daft et al

1988; Daft and Weick1984)

• Conversely, behavioural development is the new response or action based on theexisting interpretations Argyris and Schon embraced these into their learning the-ories (1978,1996) as single-loop learning and the higher level cognitive ‘double-loop’ learning

1.5.1 From Single to Double Loop Learning

Early research demonstrated a strong emphasis on the role of individual learning in

OL The ‘double-loop’ learning concept, by Argyris and Schon (1978), focuses onthe learning-action role of individuals who are interpreting their experiences withoutaddressing the group or cultural dimensions This ‘double-loop’ learning extendssingle-loop learning by questioning and modifying underlying concepts Besides,emphasis was also placed on the human process of “action learning”, i.e throughexperience via various feedback mechanisms interacting with everyone’s sets ofbeliefs Such learning, then, requires action and feedback, as well as a mindset tochange existing beliefs, to apply new insights to improve the organization

Argyris once stated that “Organizational learning is a process of detecting and

correcting error Error is for our purposes any feature of knowledge or knowing that inhibits learning When the process enables the organization to carry on its present policies or achieve its objectives, the process may be called single loop learning Single loop learning can be compared with a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and then turns the heat on or off The thermostat is able to perform this task because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and therefore take corrective action.”

Deutero-learning is an even higher level of learning, which involves both thesingle-loop and double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon1978) Organizations are

Fig 1.2 Deutero learning

then more than ad hoc collections of individuals with structured relationships; vidual learning and learning in groups become institutionalized as organization arte-facts (Hedberg1981; Shrivastava1983) Therefore, OL needs to consider the indi-vidual, team, and learning at different organizational levels (Crossan et al 1995)(Fig.1.2)

indi-• Single loop learning: Consists of one feedback loop when strategy is modified inresponse to an unexpected result (error correction)

• Double loop learning: Learning that results in a change in theory-in-use Thevalues, strategies, and assumptions that govern action are changed to create amore efficient environment

• Deutero-learning: Learning about improving the learning system itself This iscomposed of structural and behavioural components which determine how learningtakes place

Individuals are the learning agents of collective learning for learning to occur

at organizational level (Mumford 1992; Easterby-Smith 1997) Team learning isthe central issue of concern in OL The insights and innovative ideas occur to

individuals However, knowledge generated by the individual does not come to bear

on the organization independently

1.5.3 Multi-level Learning

Effective OL requires that ideas are shared, actions taken, with common meaningsdeveloped within the organization (Argyris and Schon1978,1996; Daft and Weick

1984) Since OL is multi-levelled, that means organizations should pay great attention

to the ‘synergy’ of team performance

Beside the types of learning proposed by Argyris and Schon (from single-loop,double-loop to deutero-learning), learning within OL can be simply divided intothree levels:

• Individual Level Learning: Individual competence, capability, and motivation toundertake the required tasks

• Group Level Learning: Group dynamics and the development of shared standing

under-• Organization Level Learning: Alignment between the non-human storehouses oflearning including systems, structure, strategy, procedures, and culture, given thecompetitive environment

The concurrent activities of feed-forward and feed-back are the key elements ofstrategic renewal within an LO:

Feed-forward Learning: Whether and how individual learning feeds forward into

group learning and learning at the organizational level (e.g changes to structure,systems, products, strategy, procedures, culture)

Feed-back Learning: Whether and how the learning that is embedded in the

organi-zation (e.g systems, structure, strategy) affects individual and group learning.Learning can take place at different levels, of different forms, within an organi-zation, contributing to the creation of central value—the knowledge in OL

1.6 Highlights

• the concepts of organizational learning (OL) and learning organization (LO) hasprospered and have been defined as the process of acquiring, distributing, integrat-ing, and creating information and knowledge within an organization

• Current literature on OL have different focuses, namely, learning motivation, lective or team learning; learning process or system; learning culture; knowledgemanagement, organizational development and continuous improvement Besidesthe different focus areas, OL is also described as “process-focusing” where learn-ing is an “innate, ongoing process” in organizations

col-• Organizational learning is an expansive and diverse field with influences on ogy, psychology, philosophy, business management, and many others disciplines.There is no overarching framework, which cohesively pulls together all theoreti-cal advances into a unified theory A multi-disciplinary approach is therefore anappropriate way to study the complexity of OL.

sociol-• With emphasis on empowering of individuals to act, action learning thereforefosters OL by allowing effective learning to take place within organizations atboth individual and organizational levels

• The paradox of OL is that it is not merely the sum of individual learning, but thelearning at different levels within an organization, of various forms are directing

OL towards the pre-set objectives

perspec-Foil M, Lyles M (1985) Organizational learning Acad Manag Rev 10(4):803–813

Fulmer RM, Gibbs P, Keys JB (1998) The second-generation learning organizations: new tools for sustaining competitive advantage Organ Dyn 27(2):7–20

Garratt B (1999) The learning organization 15 years on: some personal reflections Learn Organ 6(5):202

Garvin DA (1994) Building a learning organization Bus Credit 96(1):19

Hedberg B (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn In: Nystorm P, Starbuck W (eds) Handbook

of organizational design Routledge, London, p 8 (another in Oxford University Press, pp 1–27) Issacs WN (1993) Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning Org Dyn 22(2):24–39

Katzenbach JR, Smith DK (1993) The discipline of teams Harvard Bus Rev 71(2):111–120

Kim DH (1993) The link between individual and organizational learning Sloan Manag Rev 35:37–50

Law KMY, Chuah KB (2015) PAL driven organizational learning: theory and practices: a light on learning journey of organizations Springer, Berlin

Lynn GS, Reilly RR, Akgun AE (2000) Knowledge management in new product teams: practices and outcomes IEEE Trans Eng Manag 47(2):221–231 https://doi.org/10.1109/17.846789

Meyer MA (1994) The dynamics of learning with team production implications for task assignment Quart J Econ 109(4):1157–1184

Mumford A (1992) Individual and organizational learning: the pursuit of change Manag Decis 30(6):143

Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation Organ Sci 5(1):14–37 Nonaka I, Takeuchi K (1995) The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation Oxford University Press, Oxford

Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (2006) Organizational knowledge creation In: Creative management and development, 3rd edn pp 64–81

Örtenblad A (2004) The learning organization: towards an integrated model Learn Organ 11(2):129–144 https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470410521592

Pedler M, Aspinwall K (1998) A concise guide to the learning organization Lemos & Crane, London

Pemberton JD, Stonehouse GH, Yarrow DJ (2001) Benchmarking and the role of organizational learning in developing competitive advantage Knowl Process Manag 8(2):123–135

Poell RF, Van der Krogt FJ (2003) Project-based learning in organizations: towards a methodology for learning in groups J Workplace Learn 15(5):217–228

Revans RW (1982) The origins and growth of action learning Chartwell Bratt, Bromley

Revans RW (1983) Action learning: the skills of diagnosis Manag Decis 21(2):46–52 https://doi org/10.1108/eb001315

Roth G, Kleiner A (1998) Developing organizational memory through learning histories Organ Dyn 27(2):43–60

Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization Doubleday, New York, NY

Senge P (1992) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization Doubleday, New York, NY

Shrivastava P (1983) A typology of organizational learning systems J Manag Stud 20(1):7 Smith PAC (1999) The learning organization ten years on: a case study Learn Organ 6(5):217–224 Smith PAC, O’Neil J (2003) A review of action learning literature 1994–2000: part 1—bibliography and comments J Workplace Learn 15(2):63–69 https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620310464102

Teare R, Ingram H, Prestoungrange G, Sandelands E (2002) High performance learning at work Int J Contemp Hospitality Manag 14(7):375–381

Wang CL, Ahmed PK (2003) Organizational learning: a critical review Learn Organ 10(1):8 Weick KE (1991) The nontraditional quality of organizational learning Organ Sci 2(1):116 Weick KE (1996) The role of renewal in organizational learning Int J Technol Manag 11(7–8):738–746

Yeo R (2002) Learning within organizations: linking the theoretical and empirical perspectives J Workplace Learn 14(3):109–122

Yeo R (2003) The tangibles and intangibles of organizational performance Team Perform Manag Int J 9(7/8):199–204

Yeo RK (2006) Building knowledge through action systems, process leadership and organizational learning Foresight 8(4):34–44 https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680610682021

Dr Kong Bieng Chuah is Associate Professor of Systems Engineering and Engineering Department, City University of Hong Kong He is a core faculty member of the Engineering Doctorate, M.Sc Engineering Management and B.Eng Indus- trial Engineering and Engineering Management programmes His current teaching and research focus on project management and project based organizational learning He is a consultant in project management and organizational learning and conducts project management courses and workshops for industries In his earlier years, Dr Chuah was a mechanical engineer with exper- tise in engineering metrology and surface roughness character- isation He advised on engineering measurement problems and calibration set-ups.

Dr Kris M Y Law is currently the Associate Professor

in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Indus- trial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland.

Dr Law obtained her Ph.D in Organization Learning and MPhil in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong She under- took a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011) Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Devel- opment (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII) She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consul- tant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations.

Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed).

Organizational Learning for Value

Creation

Kris M Y Law and Shuang Geng

Abstract Technology and industry growth urge organizations to enhance their

knowledge level and creation of new knowledge is highly valued in learning zations (LO) It is inevitable that knowledge is a critical part in the OL context Thischapter discusses the importance of knowledge creation in an LO and the relevantissues of organizational knowledge, such as knowledge process, learning policy andlearning technologies

organi-2.1 Values and Visions

Vision, mission, and values play key parts in the organizational strategy process.Visioning starts the strategy process (Finkelstein et al.2008), and strategy describesthe future picture of the organization and mission with respect to their sets of valuesand cultures (Shrivastava1985; Wilson1992) Organizational values provide normsthat specify how members should behave, and how resources should be allocated(Balthazard et al.2006; Cameron and Quinn1999; Kleijnen et al.2009; Bourne andJenkins 2013) The set of values form the organizational culture which thus alsoinfluences strategy formulation (Wilson1992; Costanza et al.2015)

With strong and clearly defined values, a mission is thus formulated A mission

is generally seen as a tool for disseminating management beliefs and approaches tostakeholders to drive the strategic plans (Toftoy and Chatterjee2004; Hirota et al

2010; Salem Khalifa2012), and can be either strategic or cultural The strategic typerelates to the organizational objectives and provides the vision for strategic planning.The cultural type describes the organizational values and identity regarding to theorganizational goals, norms, and behaviour (Campbell2011; Babnik et al.2014)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

K M Y Law and K B Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_2

15

Specific organizational values and outcomes vary across national cultures ede1983,1994), while the national culture is manifested through a common notion

(Hofst-of a shared mentality (Laurent1986; Rhody and Tang1995) The impact of nationalculture pertains to the phenomenon of organizational acculturation which alludes tocultural changes (Selmer and De Leon1996,2002)

2.2 Creation of New Knowledge as Values

As the environment becomes more and more information-intensive, an organizationmay become relatively dysfunctional to its business objectives The traditional meth-ods that were used to solve the “knowledge problem” have reached their limits ofeffectiveness

Technology and industry growth urge organizations to enhance their knowledgelevel and creation of new knowledge is highly valued in learning organizations (LO)

It is inevitable that knowledge is a critical part in the OL context; attention should

be paid to who learns what and where the knowledge is rooted (Leymann 1989;Burgoyne 1999; Bollinger and Smith2001) The values that characterize culture

of firms vary across industries Firms in the same industry tend to share similartechnology and be with less variation in their cultures

There have been debates about the entities of learning, and location of knowledge(Argyris and Schön1978; Cook and Yanow1993) According to Dodgson (1993),these knowledge-related issues involve the means the organization uses to dissemi-nate information throughout its ranks, and the ways that the information is processedand stored This is what recent researchers have stressed: knowledge management.Sets of processes for knowledge creation and models for establishing processes

to spur new knowledge were introduced (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) Differentapproaches of knowledge management (from mechanistic, systematic to behaviouris-tic) are plentiful in the OL literature:

• The mechanistic approach concerns the technical and technological issues ofknowledge accumulation, storage

• The systematic approach focuses on the rational analytical problem-solving cesses, while the behaviouristic approach emphasizes on the change of mindset,the improvement of innovation and creativity (Argyris and Schön1978)

pro-• The behaviouristic approach in knowledge management is often said to have itsroots in process re-engineering and change management It tends to view “knowl-edge management” as a management issue rather than as a technology issue.Nonaka and Takeuchi (1996) proposed a spiral of knowledge creation (Fig.2.1)that covers the four modes of knowledge conversion (socialization, externalization,internalization, and combination) and knowledge sharing among the three levels(individual, team and organization) Furthermore, exploration and exploitation ofknowledge have also been studied Exploration is about the use of experimentationand innovation to seek new ideas for application, whereas exploitation is the effective

Fig 2.1 The SECI knowledge creation process by Nonaka

use of current knowhow and new idea of incorporating efficient improvement andrefinement into a business (March1991; Roth and Kleiner1998, Lynn et al.1998).The above knowledge-related studies are not explicitly related to the concept of

OL, but they shed lights on how the knowledge-related learning process is ing to OL

contribut-2.3 Knowledge Creation in the Digital Age

Apart from business performance, the influence of OL on knowledge managementhas also been addressed It has been proven that OL promotes knowledge manage-ment and the quality of knowledge (Gagnon et al.2015; Thepthepa and Mitsufuji

2016) While the technology development fosters growth (Thomson1967; Zammutoand O’Connor1992), firms characterized by intensive technologies are found to havehigh levels of innovation (Pennings and Harianto1992), emphasis on team oriented(Saxenian1990) and a high level of job structure (Hofstede et al.1990)

Organizational learning and knowledge management always come in twin, theyare heavily dependent on organizational memory Organizational memory is at thecentre of all knowledge activities While organizational memory depends on the indi-vidual memories of organization members, the rules, procedures, beliefs, and culturesare preserved over time through socialization and control (Levitt and March,1988).Short term knowledge efforts should concentrate on short term knowledge preserva-tion, which is based mostly on tacit knowledge This can be facilitated through best

practice data bases, lessons-learned archives, or expert systems In long-term efforts,organizational memory should support knowledge creation and organizationallearning.

Knowledge creation happens at the intersection of organizational members Theburgeoning of information communication technologies offers some new methods

of analysing and interpreting the meaningful patterns and structures of information

IT tools for knowledge creation consists of mind-mapping tools, simulations, orative writing tools, data and text mining, and visualization tools (Al-Hawamdeh

collab-2003) Some emerging learning technologies, such as learning recommender tem, question and answering system, are also developed to support personalizedlearning preference and process In the digitalization process of most organizations,these technologies are increasingly adopted and integrated with the existing doc-ument management systems, expert systems, and enterprise software (Botha et al

sys-2008) As an important dimension of organization investment in members’ edge development, information service system enables users to utilize informationaccumulated in the operation process and reflect on the existing experience.Effective integration between knowledge creation process and information tech-nologies is essential for organizations to survive in this digital age Chua (2004)developed a three-tiered knowledge management system architecture to bridge thegap between knowledge management community and consultant technologist Thisarchitecture provides three types of services supported by knowledge managementtechnologies including infrastructure services, knowledge services, and presentationservices Incorporating knowledge creation tools can transform this architecture into

knowl-a three-tiered knowledge creknowl-ation system knowl-architecture knowl-as illustrknowl-ated in Fig.2.2(Pleaserefer Sect.8.3)

Concept Extraction

Organizational Learning Support System (OLSS)

Fig 2.2 Knowledge creation system architecture

2.4 Organizational Value and Learning Policy

Knowledge creation process embodies the learning policies and value of an zation Organizational value describes the collective behavior and mindset of orga-nization members Value of an organization has invisible influence on individual’sbehavior, including learning and knowledge sharing An organization with man-agement emphasizing more on innovations and creativity will encourage people’screative thinking and knowledge development So that managers are keen on fos-tering an atmosphere for employees to develop their knowledge and independentthinking ability

organi-Organization policy embodies the management philosophy of an organization Italso determines the amount and type of resource allocated for employee develop-ment Sufficient learning resource, especially online resource support and facilitateindividual learning Organization policy also defines the employee’s performanceevaluation dimensions and standards An evaluation scheme with effective feedback

of individual performance provides external motivation and pressure on the ual learning and development Knowledge gained by teams has been associated withrealizable benefits in the form of improved performance (Meyer1994) This alignswell with the OL ideals and is similar to the Core Group Theory, which explainshow the power, knowledge, and influence of core groups interact with organizationopportunities to gain learning and creativity for the groups concerned (Kleiner2003).Organizational value in the dimension of learning and knowledge sharing evolves

individ-as the organization grows and transforms and is shaped by organization learningpolicy (Geng et al.2016) Organizational policies regarding to the information tech-nology investment reflect the management support for employee knowledge devel-opment Therefore, the effective setting of organizational learning policies helps toenhance the learning and knowledge sharing

2.5 Organizational Knowledge Creation Technologies

Organizations are referred as “learning systems” (Revans 1982) Learning in theorganizational context can take various forms including both formal and informallearning (Drachsler et al.2008), online learning and offline learning (Singh2003).Compared with offline learning, online learning provides greater flexibility in timeand space for learners The digitalization of workplace operations also highlights theimportance of online learning (Ravenscroft et al.2012) Learning technologies such

as learning information retrieval, question answering system, learning recommendersystem, and data visualization techniques are emerging in recent years

2.5.1 Information Retrieval

Information retrieval (IR) is finding material (usually documents) of an unstructurednature (usually text) that satisfies an information need from within large collec-tions Three prominent scales include web search, personal information retrieval,and enterprise/institutional/domain-specific search (Manning et al 2008) IR fororganizational knowledge creation needs to allow explorative searching using naturelanguage and overcome the challenge of syntax variations and semantic complexi-ties (Li et al.2007) of documents The leverage of enterprise knowledge structure orcontent categories can help to improve the searching performance (Geng2017)

2.5.2 Question Answering

Question answering, as an important research direction in Nature Language cessing (NLP), aims at interpreting and answering the human questions in naturelanguage Compared with information retrieval, question answering is more chal-lenging, as it requires accurate answer to questions rather than retrieving only rel-evant document based on user query Question answering within organizations canmake use of the ontology to identify concepts related to the query in the knowledgedomain The frequently asked user questions can be stored with the answers andposted on the web page for fresh users By providing a user-friendly way of gettinginformation from the knowledge base, question answering service can facilitate theindividual learning in the organization

pro-2.5.3 Recommender System

The recommender system for knowledge creation is able to proactively sends mation to users based on user interests after seeking users’ consent (Fig.2.3) Withthe increasing volume of information stored in the knowledge base and more usersuse the knowledge base as learning resource, the RS can assist learners in discoveringrelevant learning resource that match their interests Learning recommender systemcan assist in employee training with lower cost and improves the skills of employees(Payne et al 2009) Acquiring qualified and trustworthy information can enhancethe users’ perceived quality of decision making between choices (Yan et al.2017;Lin and Xu 2017) Personalization increases the change of rating elicitation andadditional information about the users is beneficial in improving the active learningprocess (Elahi et al.2016)

Learning recommendation

User

preference

Recommender System

User profile

Fig 2.3 Knowledge recommender system architecture

2.5.4 Data Visualization

Data visualization techniques aim at helping users to better understand the content

in the knowledge base There are many scenarios where data visualization can beapplied For example, visualizing the major concepts or themes of the contents helpsusers to navigate within or across different themes and perform explorative searching

in the knowledge base Visualizing the queries of users and most frequently accessedcontents can help the managers to detect the important issues being studied among theusers Data visualization function can also assist users with modelling and analysingcertain group of data which may create new knowledge

2.6 Chapter Highlights

• Organizational learning stimulates knowledge creation for organizational value

• Organization policy shapes organizational value in the learning dimension

• Knowledge creation gains support from information technologies in this digitalage

• Knowledge creation system contains data management tier, knowledge creationtier, knowledge representation tier

• Knowledge creation technologies can be classified into different tier of knowledgecreation system

Al-Hawamdeh S (2003) Knowledge management: cultivating knowledge professionals Elsevier Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) A theory of action perspective Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Babnik K, Breznik K, Dermol V, Trunk Širca N (2014) The mission statement: organisational culture perspective Ind Manag Data Syst 114(4):612–627

Balthazard PA, Cooke RA, Potter RE (2006) Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional organization: capturing the behavioural norms that form organizational culture and drive performance J Manag Psychol 21(8):709–732

Bollinger AS, Smith RD (2001) Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset J Knowl Manag 5(1):8–18

Botha A, Kourie D, Snyman R (2008) Coping with continuous change in the business environment.

J Mol Biol 33(1):109–122

Bourne H, Jenkins M (2013) Organizational values: a dynamic perspective Organ Stud 34(4):495–514

Burgoyne J (1999) Design of times People Manag 5(11):38

Cameron KS, Quinn RE (1999) An introduction to changing organizational culture Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework, pp 1–17 Campbell P (2011) Creative industries in a European capital of culture Int J Cult Policy 17(5):510–522

Chua A (2004) Knowledge management system architecture: a bridge between KM consultants and technologists Int J Inf Manage 24(1):87–98

Cook SD, Yanow D (1993) Culture and organizational learning J Manag Inq 2(4):373–390 Costanza DP, Blacksmith N, Coats MR, Severt JB, Decostanza AH (2015) The effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival J Bus Psychol 31(3):361–381

Dodgson M (1993) Organizational learning: a review of some literatures Organ Stud 14(3):375–394 Drachsler H, Hummel HG, Koper R (2008) Personal recommender systems for learners in lifelong learning networks: the requirements, techniques and model Int J Learn Technol 3(4):404–423 Elahi M, Ricci F, Rubens N (2016) Active learning in collaborative filtering recommender systems Comput Sci Rev 20(C):29–50

Finkelstein S, Harvey C, Lawton T (2008) Vision by design: a reflexive approach to enterprise regeneration J Bus Strategy 29(2):4–13

Gagnon MP, Payne-Gagnon J, Fortin JP, Paré G, Côté J, Courcy F (2015) A learning organization in the service of knowledge management among nurses: a case study Int J Inf Manage 35(5):636–642 Geng S (2017) Knowledge discovery for organizational learning City University of Hong Kong Ph.D Dissertation

Geng S, Chuah KB, Cheung CK (2016) Learning and knowledge sharing in a manufacturing pany Knowl Manag: An Int J 16(4):13–32

com-Hirota S, Kubo K, Miyajima H, Hong P, Won Park Y (2010) Corporate mission, corporate policies and business outcomes: evidence from Japan Manag Decis 48(7):1134–1153

Hofstede G (1983) The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories J Int Bus Stud 14(2):75–89

Hofstede G (1994) The business of international business is culture Int Bus Rev 3(1):1–14 Hofstede G, Neuijen B, Ohayv DD, Sanders G (1990) Measuring organizational cultures: a quali- tative and quantitative study across twenty cases Adm Sci Q 286–316

Kleijnen J, Dolmans D, Muijtjens A, Willems J, Van Hout H (2009) Organisational values in higher education: perceptions and preferences of staff Qual High Educ 15(3):233–249

Kleiner A (2003) Who really matters: the core group theory of power, privilege, and success Crown Business

Laurent A (1986) The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource management Hum Resour Manag 25(1):91–102

Levitt B, March JG (1988) Organizational learning Ann Rev Sociol 14(1):319–338

Leymann H (1989) Learning theories In: Leymann H, Kornbluh H (eds)

Li Z, Raskin V, Ramani K (2007) Developing ontologies for engineering information retrieval In: ASME 2007 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and informa- tion in engineering conference (pp 737–745) American Society of Mechanical Engineers Lin CA, Xu X (2017) Effectiveness of online consumer reviews: the influence of valence, reviewer ethnicity, social distance and source trustworthiness Internet Res 27(2):362–380

Lynn GS, Mazzuca M, Morone JG, Paulson AS (1998) Learning is the critical success factor in developing truly new products Res Technol Manag 41(3):45

Manning C, Raghavan P, Schütze H (2008) Introduction to information retrieval Cambridge University Press, Cambridge http://www-nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book ; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511809071

March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning Soc Sci Electron Publ 2(1):71–87

Meyer MA (1994) The dynamics of learning with team production implications for task assignment Quart J Econ 109(4):1157–1184

Nonaka I, Takeuchi K (1995) The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation Oxford University Press, Oxford

Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1996) The knowledge creating company New York

Payne AM, Stephenson JE, Morris WB, Tempest HG, Mileham A, Griffin DK (2009) The use of

an e-learning constructivist solution in workplace learning Int J Ind Ergon 39(3):548–553 Pennings JM, Harianto F (1992) The diffusion of technological innovation in the commercial bank- ing industry Strateg Manag J 13(1):29–46

Ravenscroft A, Schmidt A, Cook J, Bradley C (2012) Designing social media for informal learning and knowledge maturing in the digital workplace J Comput Assist Learn 28(3):235–249 Revans R (1982) The origins and growth of action learning Ind Commerc Train 14(7):248–249 Rhody JD, Tang TLP (1995) Learning from Japanese transplants and American corporations Public Pers Manag 24(1):19–32

Roth G, Kleiner A (1998) Developing organizational memory through learning histories Org Dyn 27(2):43–60

Salem Khalifa A (2012) Mission, purpose, and ambition: redefining the mission statement J Strategy Manag 5(3):236–251

Saxenian A (1990) Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley Calif Manag Rev 33(1):89–112

Selmer J, De Leon C (1996) Parent cultural control through organizational acculturation: HCN employees learning new work values in foreign business subsidiaries J Organ Behav 17(S1):557–572

Selmer J, De Leon C (2002) Management and culture in the Philippines Business Research Centre, School of Business, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong

Shrivastava P (1985) Corporate strategy: integrating strategy formulation with organizational ture J Bus Strategy 5(3):103–111

cul-Singh H (2003) Building effective blended learning programs Educ Technol 43(6):51–54 Thepthepa N, Mitsufuji T (2016) Knowledge process and learning organization development in science museums Procedia Comput Sci 99:157–170

Thomson JD (1967) Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory Hill, c1967

McGraw-Toftoy CN, Chatterjee J (2004) Mission statements and the small business Bus strategy Rev 15(3):41–44

Wilson I (1992) Realizing the power of strategic vision Long Range Plan 25(5):18–28

Yan Y, Zhang X, Zha X, Jiang T, Qin L, Li Z (2017) Decision quality and satisfaction: the effects

of online information sources and self-efficacy Internet Res 27(4):885–904

Zammuto RF, O’Connor EJ (1992) Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies’ benefits: the roles of organization design and culture Acad Manag Rev 17(4):701–728

Dr Kris M Y Law is currently the Associate Professor

in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Indus- trial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland.

Dr Law obtained her Ph.D in Organization Learning and M.Phil in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011).

Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and opment (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII) She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consul- tant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations.

Devel-Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed).

Dr Shuang Geng obtained her B.S degree in engineering (in 2013) and Ph.D degree (in 2017) from the College of Sci- ence and Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, P.R China She is currently Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Management Science Department, College of Management, and Greater Bay Area International Institute for Innovation in Shen Zhen University Her research interests include Project and Team Management, Recommender Systems, Learning Technologies, Heuristic Optimization Algorithms Her papers appear in Computers & Education, Project Management Journal, International Journal of Technology and Design Educa- tion, etc.

Factors in Organizational Learning

Kris M Y Law and Chris R Cao

Abstract Many studies have been conducted to identify the influencing factors of

OL process and effectiveness Among the many OL influencing factors, individualand interpersonal factors may be of the most important for some organizations incertain operational environments In this chapter, how OL process is affected byindividual and organizational factors are discussed

Grounded on the notion that OL is “process-focusing” and “innate, ongoing process”

in organizations (Chap.1), many studies were conducted to identify the influencingfactors of OL process and effectiveness

To depict OL process visualization, a process-focusing model breaking downthe OL process into Driver-Enabler-Learning-Outcome (DELO), was introduced todescribe the OL process (Law2007,2009; Law and Chuah2015) The DELO model

is shown in Fig.3.1

The detailed DELO process will be discussed further in Chap.4 In this chapter,influencing factors, which are divided into ‘individual’ and ‘organizational’, arediscussed (Fig.3.2)

3.1 Individual Factors

The paradoxical nature that OL is not merely the collection of individual learning,but is more than the cumulative sum of individual learners (Argyris and Schon1978;Hedberg1981; Cohen and Levinthal1990) Figure3.3illustrates the synergy effectwhen individual learners learn collectively

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

K M Y Law and K B Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_3

25

Fig 3.1 The DELO organizational learning process

Organizational culture and individual are correlated (Schein1984,1986) ual’s mindset that interacts with facets of situations within an organization is crucial

Individ-to the learning Aspects of individuals, such as values and beliefs, interact with facets

of situations to affect the individual’s attitudinal and behavioural responses A keyissue in the literature on OL is the permeability between individual and OL, that is,

to what extent the characteristics and processes by which individuals be extended toOL

Human resources professionals have been focusing on ways which promote ing in organizations (Marsick and Gephart2003) It has been theorized that system-atic approaches to learning in organizations are tied to corporate performance andare therefore of value Additional insight into the potential impacts of the environ-ments of employees is crucial for learning and developmental practice (Egan et al

learn-2004) Employee attitudes have been found to interact with environmental factorsthat influence job values (Mobley1977), and that motivate people to learn

3.1.1 Motivation

The importance of motivation to knowledge transfer and OL has been advocated by

OL researchers Research on motivation primarily focused on the need for ment, which interacts with other variables to influence performance Motivation in

achieve-Team level Organizational level

Self

SelfSelf

Learning culture and infrastructure

Fig 3.2 Levels of learning and influencing factors

Fig 3.3 The synergy of

collective learning in

organization

Synergyindividual

individual

individual

learning is the desire to use the knowledge and skills mastered in associated withlearning activities from the job, where cognitive ability moderates the relationshipbetween need for achievement and performance Therefore, motivation constitutes acentral force when going through process of organizational activities.

The aim of every LO is to explore the factors that enable and motivate employees tolearn Motivational theories, such as motives and needs (Alderfer1972; Maslow1954,

1970), Expectancy Theory (Vroom 1964), Adam’s Equity Theory (Adams1963,

1965), Cognitive Theory (Deci1980) and Reinforcement Theory (Skinner1958),Goal Setting Theory (Wofford et al.1992), have been widely studied ReinforcementTheory and Cognitive Evaluation Theory are two of the key theories within themainstream of motivation field Most researchers believe that both intrinsic andextrinsic job factors have effects on job satisfaction, work involvement, and workmotivation

Expectancy theory

Expectancy theory (Vroom1964) suggests that motivation is a multiplicative tion of three constructs: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence Rasch and Tosicarried out performance studies by integrating elements within expectancy theory,goal setting and the need for achievement

‘not so useful’ theories among the organizational behaviour theories (Miner2005)

Reinforcement theory

Reinforcement theory emphasizes the relationship between behaviour and its quences (Skinner1958)

conse-Cognitive evaluation theory

Cognitive evaluation theory suggests two motivational subsystems: extrinsic tem and intrinsic subsystem (Deci1980), in which situational variables and impactsfrom external sources could significantly affect the cognition and hence the motiva-tion of an individual

subsys-3.1.2 Self-efficacy and Personal Goals

Self-efficacy and personal goals are important in determining performance The tive relationship between efficacy and performance and researches focused on severalimportant issues related to the theory of goal setting were carried out in the 1990s