Comparing Learning and Knowledge Management Theories in An Australian

http://ajc.sagepub.
com/
Asian Journal of Management Cases
http://ajc.sagepub.com/content/7/1/33
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/097282011000700104
2010 7: 33 Asian Journal of Management Cases
Kenneth David Strang
Telecommunications Practice
Comparing Learning and Knowledge Management Theories in an Australian
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Asian Journal of Management Cases Additional services and information for
http://ajc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://ajc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://ajc.sagepub.com/content/7/1/33.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
- May 21, 2010 Version of Record >>

at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MGMT on July 28, 2014 ajc.sagepub.com Downloaded from at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MGMT on July 28, 2014 ajc.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Cases
COMPARING LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
THEORIES IN AN AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRACTICE
Kenneth David Strang
A community of practice in a communications company was examined to discover
how design specialists learned and shared knowledge to produce innovative designs.
Contemporary learning and knowledge management theories were used as the basis
for comparison. The design team revealed how they applied learning and knowledge
management principles during their internal processes. Action research, reection-
in-action and nominal focus group techniques were used. Several workow models
were produced by the participants to explain and contrast learning and knowledge
management as applied in e-business. The ndings indicated that the team did
not apply conventional learning or knowledge management methodologies, but
instead used a modied learning model.
Keywords: Australian telecommunications, e-business, tacit process knowledge
management, organizational learning, community of practice
INTRODUCTION
A community of practice in an Australian telecommunications e-business company was
explored to discover how product design specialists learn, share and manage knowledge
across the organization to create innovative portfolios. Contemporary learning and
knowledge management theories (Awad and Ghaziri 2004; Becerra-Fernandez et al.
2004) were used as the basis for comparison. The design team was requested to docu-
ment how they applied learning and knowledge management principles during their
internal design processes. The generally accepted action research, reection-in-action
and nominal group techniques were used as the research methodology. The purpose
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT CASES, 7(1), 2010: 3354
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LOS ANGELES/LONDON/NEW DELHI/SINGAPORE/WASHINGTON DC
DOI: 10.1177/097282011000700104
This research case was prepared by Professor Kenneth David Strang of Central Queensland University,
Australia, and APPC International Market Research, NY.
at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MGMT on July 28, 2014 ajc.sagepub.com Downloaded from
34 KENNETH DAVID STRANG
of the study was to determine if this particular e-business used any unique learning
or knowledge management processes in its virtual community of practice.
The case study company extensively used virtual design teams that were based
across Australia and Europe with a multinational project ofce in Australia. Team
feedback conrmed that the community of practice relied on knowledge manage-
ment principles as well as cognitive learning processes such as applying, analyzing
and evaluating knowledge. Contrary to the generally accepted learning theory where
knowledge creation starts in the cognitive domain with remembering and ends with
evaluation (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001; Bloom and Krathwohl 1956), these experts
used a different methodology.
Spurred by the fact that the case study company was economically successful and
was still growing its market share despite the 2008 global recession (www.telstra.com.
au/nancials 2009), the research team launched an examination to see how these mo-
bile telecommunications subject matter specialists learned and acquired knowledge
to produce innovative designs. An overarching research motive was to determine why
it seemed that this multinational organization and its community of practice did not
apparently value contemporary university education. Was there an informal learning
mechanism, knowledge sharing methodology or anywhere/anytime training system
being used in lieu of the traditional learning taxonomies used at universities (and in
place of university education)? The objective of this research was to capture and con-
trast the community of practice knowledge management process with educational
psychology theories reported in literature as being relevant for e-businesses in the
knowledge economy. An evidence-based positivist ideology was applied to this research
by reviewing empirical studies in the literature and by employing a grounded theory
method to gather data directly from subject matter experts.
LITERATURE BACKGROUND
Many empirical studies of e-business organizations have used popular knowledge man-
agement frameworks or educational psychology theories to account for individual and
organizational learning. Very few studies have taken an interdisciplinary approach by
combining knowledge creation and learning theories. None of the studies reviewed,
identied a need for learning from university education (none tested it either). The
following sub-sections review relevant international e-business studies in an effort to
synthesize representative ndings of applied knowledge management and/or organ-
izational learning theories.
COMPARING LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 35
Knowledge Management and Learning Practices
Chang and Cho (2008) used the knowledge management theory to identify how teams
learned and shared organizational memories. Another meta-analysis was grounded
on a knowledge processing framework to conrm the importance of organizational
learning on outcomes in Australian e-businesses (Pentina and Strutton 2007). Kodama
(2005) leveraged knowledge taxonomy to show how two Japanese e-businesses learnt
to rapidly innovate using a supply chain community of practice. One recent study
that applied the SECI model (Nonaka and Teece 2001) on an e-business revealed how
transformational leadership and knowledge sharing formed a collaborative synergy,
which predicted higher project performance and stakeholder satisfaction (Strang
2008). A knowledge management construct was used to show how international cross-
functional teams learned and shared information effectively as evidenced by their
good performance (Sherman et al. 2005). An empirical study of fty-two international
e-business projects employed an integrated organizational learning and leadership
framework to demonstrate that learning in teams had a strong positive effect on in-
novation (Sarin and McDermott 2003).
A survey of successful Spanish e-businesses applied organizational learning concepts
to measure innovation outcomes, concluding that learning and knowledge sharing by
cross-functional teams obtain a more effective NPD process (i.e., better development
times and costs, and superior products) and a higher percentage of new products that
are successful in the market (Valle and Avella 2003: 44). A case study of Nortel, a large
North American e-business, described how knowledge management methodology
increased their organizational learning, intellectual capital and knowledge assets
(Massey et al. 2002). The e-business cited by Massey and colleagues (2002) was em-
pirically examined by this research team (in a different study), whereby it may be
conrmed that Nortel has a unique design process based on tacit knowledge creation
and sharing, and they also tend to favour internal employee training and cognitive
apprenticeships.
There are numerous studies in literature applying organizational learning and edu-
cational psychology theories in e-businesses that use e-learning design frameworks (such
as Backman et al. 2007; Ettlie and Elsenbach 2007; Gordon et al. 2008; Kyriakopoulos
and deRuyter 2004; Reid and Brentani 2004; Sawhney et al. 2005). A case study in
e-business demonstrated that the constructivist principle of situated learning can be
applied to develop an online training programme for e-business subject matter ex-
perts (Moon et al. 2005). An interesting nding by Moon and colleagues was a gap
between educational psychology theories and business needs. There was marked
convergence between the identied best practice revealed by the literature and by
the expressed needs of the SME managers (Moon et al. 2005: 37980). A case study of
a semi-conductor manufacturing organization in North America applied a traditional
pedagogy approach in the e-learning mode for staff (in cooperation with a university),
which provided some indication of learning by the management team (Edgington
2005). Roussev and Rousseva (2004) applied Blooms cognitive domain educational
taxonomy for a learning experiment in e-business software training with statistically
signicant ndings. A study of learning design in e-business revealed that applying
deep learning concepts along with organizational learning principles improved learn-
ing (Rungtusanatham et al. 2004).
The older management science literature is quite saturated with case studies that
have applied knowledge management or organizational learning theories to show that
businesses can improve innovation and competitive advantage. Even though many
of these studies were based in the US, some researchers also examined international
(non-US) organizations (this case study is based on a multinational e-business located
in Asia and Australia). By way of synthesis, the consensus is that creating, sharing
and leveraging explicit/tacit knowledge through team and organizational learning is
a competency of successful businesses in the knowledge economy (Edvinsson 1997;
Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Handy 2001; Leonard and Sensiper 1998; Nonaka and Teece,
2001; Sveiby, 1997; Teece, 2001; von Krough et al. 2000; Wiig 2002). University educa-
tion is rarely mentioned in the relevant literature cited here. Educational psychology
theories are sometimes identied and assessed in empirical literature when analyzing
organizational learning and corporate training programmes.
Knowledge Management and Learning
Innovation (knowledge management) and e-business learning require the ability to
capture and share tacit knowledge about design. Teams do not have time to learn
from scratch as would be the case in a typical university course (Chang and Cho 2008;
Gronros 1994; Handy 2001; Kavali et al. 1999; Nonaka and Teece 2001; von Krough
et al. 2000). In product design, tacit knowledge and intellectual capital are considered
more valuable than explicit information (Boudreau and Ramstad 1997; Kim and
Mauborgne 1999; Stewart 2000).
Knowledge management and organizational learning researchers have used key
terms such as experiential, conceptual, routine and systemic (Nonaka et al. 2001: 29)
to describe tacit knowledge. In e-business memory knowledge can be held by indi-
viduals (Lank 1997), customers (Prahlad and Ramaswamy 2000), teams (Takeuchi
2001), communities of practice (Wenger and Snyder 2000) and/or organizations
through their procedures, strategy or culture (Beckett 2000; Walsh and Ungson 1997;
Zack 1999). Memory knowledge may be a state of knowing (to know about)to be
familiar with or to be aware of facts, methods, principles, techniques; a capacity for
action (know how)to understand facts, methods, principles and techniques sufcient
to apply them in the course of making things happen; and/or a body of knowledge
(know what)codied, captured in books, papers, formulas, procedure manuals,
computer code, and so on (Nickols 2001). Memory knowledge in business is typically
differentiated from facts as a conclusion drawn from the data and information
(Stewart 2000: 69).
Several researchers such as Zack (1999: 132) extended the basic memory knowledge
denition using the W5+how principle to include causal knowledge (know why),
conditional knowledge (know when) and relational knowledge (know [who]). Others
suggest there may be memory knowledge characteristics associated with motivation
(Quinne et al. 1996; Teigland 2000) as well as emotion/trust (Goleman 2000, 1998).
Anxiety (along with fear and helplessness) has also been linked with memory know-
ledge (Schein 1993: 8688; Seel 2001).
Language and national culture have always been critical psychological dimensions
associated with memory knowledge (Brown 1998; Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars
2000; Holden 2002; Swierczek 1994; Trompenaars 1993). Language is a fundamental
determinant of how humans interpret denitions (Brown, 1998); people often use
shades of meaning (varying by language and culture) to explore and interpret each
others perception and sense of a phenomenon (Chomsky 1959). This leads to the next
critical characteristic of memory knowledge expressed as tacit (Polanyi 1997: 136).
Explicit memory refers to knowledge that is (or can be) codied while tacit means
silent, more than we can tell [] such as face recognition from millions of faces
(Polanyi 1997: 136).
There are variations and extensions to the tacit memory knowledge in literature.
Nickols (2001: 15) considers that tacit knowledge cannot be articulated at all and the
knowing is in the doing. In a slightly different perspective, Burton-Jones (1999) de-
scribes some kinds of tacit knowledge as sticky which is difcult to codify or explain
so that it tends to stick to the person with that knowledge and is only transferred with a
fair bit of explanation and effort. This is a common perspective of tacit knowledge.
A variation of tacit memory knowledge is embodied tacit knowledge meaning
knowledge in use and self-transcending knowledge intended to mean knowledge that
has not yet been embodied (Strang 2010: 313). It is possible that these last two char-
acteristics could be described as intuitiona well-known phenomenon in e-business.
Weick (1995: 112) seems to have dened tacit knowledge in use as instinct, wise people
know that they do not fully understand what is happening right now because they
have never come against that precise situation before, however, they pattern match
for similar situations [] and make their judgments accordingly. Perhaps this is an
innate form of knowledge.
Another form of tacit memory is implicit knowledge (Nickols 2001), which is implied
by or inferred from observable behaviour or performance. Additionally, tacit knowledge
can only be shared if the recipient individual or group is absorptive (Cohen and
Levinthal 1990), ready and capable of receiving and understanding. However, certain
implicit or tacit knowledge may be so complex that it is not teachable (Davenport and
Prusak 2000: 70) and thus it cannot be retrieved or used other than by the holder.
Despite the difculty of sharing or teaching tacit knowledge, organizational memory
is recognized as a critical form of organizational knowledge for business innovation.
Organizational memory includes traditional corporate knowledge, namely strategy
and procedures (Hansen et al. 2001), as well as competitive intelligence capability
(Johnson 2001), and tacit memory. Moorman and Miner (1997) suggest four dimensions
of organizational memory: level, dispersion, accessibility and content. Organizational
memory is a uid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and
expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new ex-
periences and information [] it often becomes embedded not only in documents
or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms
(Davenport and Prusak 2000: 5). Organizational learning is often associated with and
is seen as the main source of organizational memory (Brown 1998: 16).
Communities of practice (Wenger and Snyder 2000) are valuable sources of organ-
izational memory. These practice communities are informal, spontaneous, self-
organized groups of people, who share knowledge, solve common problems and
exchange insights and frustrations (Lesser and Prusak 2001: 253). These groups are
bound by informal relationships, share similar work roles and a common context to
produce social capital.
Knowledge management processes describe the way knowledge is created, trans-
formed and shared/transferred, while borrowing upon certain memory denitions
and taxonomies. As compared with methodologies, processes are separate workows,
tools and techniques in the knowledge life cycle (they are not necessarily integrated
in a systematic loop). There are broad views in literature about knowledge manage-
ment processes; the common theme is that knowledge processes are discussed as
systematic tools and techniques for sourcing/capturing, organizing/transforming/
storing/retrieving and sharing/transferring.
In business, explicit knowledge is most readily captured from organizational records
(techniques, performance, data mining), from communities of practice members
(project histories) and from customers/suppliers (surveys, feedback). Procedural
and declarative knowledge are important to capture because this is the basis for
skill development, job descriptions, project management, productivity, quality, and
eventually competitive advantage. The sources are often tacit behaviour and occas-
ionally they are organizational memory/intelligence (documented strategy, core com-
petencies). Interestingly, literature reminds us that valuable explicit intellectual capital
can be researched from external sources, namely, innovation approaches and best
practices (Horvath 2001). Customers (the third relational component of intellectual
capital discussed earlier) are a good source of explicit knowledge (Ulwick 2002).
Nonaka et al. (2001: 73) describe a knowledge creating and sharing process that
spirals in a four dimensional cycle of socialization, externalization, combination
and internalization (SECI), using a community of practice. Nonaka describes the com-
munity of practice as ba (Nonaka and Konno 1998: 133) and Nippongo in Japanese
for shared interpersonal space.
Sharing tacit knowledge follows the general axiom that rst it must be articulated
(into explicit memory), before it can be communicated or transferred (Kaye 2001).
However, articulation methods go beyond verbalizing, drawing and writingthey may
include body language, signals and even shared perceptions. Storytelling is a method
for sharing tacit knowledge which involves (primarily subject matter specialists) using
combinations of personal stories, evidence to support their ideas, along with a visual
metaphor (superimposed on an analysis tree) that shows the structure and relation-
ships among the ideas/phases (Forman 2001). Storytelling permits the transfer of rich
contextual knowledge details (Hansen and Kahnweiler 1993), while empowering the
community of practice members to reframe their own perceptions (not necessarily
ltering out or denying cultural norms), thus enabling individuals to grasp new implied
tacit knowledge not present in their conscious memory (Ambrosini and Bowman 2001;
Sternberg et al. 2000; Swap et al. 2001).
Other useful processes for creating and sharing tacit knowledge include sense
making whereby specialists reect on tacit, explicit and self-transcending knowledge,
forming or augmenting their mental model (Senge et al. 1999). Additionally, practice
members are able to use other techniques mentioned earlier to share that concept.
Mental models can sometimes be shared within a community of practice where mem-
bers have shared experiences (Wenger 1999).
Organizational learning is a form of knowledge management process (Awad and
Ghaziri 2004; Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2004), which is often viewed as the business
industry complement to educational psychology. Organizational learning includes
both intentional and unintentional learning, enabling the acquisition of, access to,
and revision of organizational memory, thereby providing direction to organizational
action (Robey et al. 2000). High quality organizational learning is often integrated with
the community of practice concept, using dialogue as a process for capturing valuable
tacit knowledge into the organizational memory (intellectual capital). Communities of
practice (COPs) are groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise
and passion for a joint organisational (Wenger and Snyder 2000: 139). Literature
contains many examples of the relevance of COPs for capturing tacit knowledge. For
example, at Xerox, informal (but highly focused) technical specialists solved complex
and often perplexing problems by collaborating (Kikawada and Holtshouse 2001). In
this case, COPs are used to improve product designs. This tacit knowledge can be
shared as organizational memory through dialogues, storytelling and other processes,
so the organization is able to learn (Brown and Duguid 1991; Davenport and Prusak
2000; Lesser and Prusak 2001).
While there are many theories in educational psychology, the generally accepted
taxonomy of learning consists of three domainscognitive, affective and kinaesthetic
(Bloom and Krathwohl 1956)whereby the cognitive domain is of interest in this
research since it roughly mirrors the knowledge management memory taxonomy
applied in e-business (and other e-business studies have applied this theory). The
cognitive domain consists of six sequential stages in the learning process, and there are
two popular versions (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001; Bloom and Krathwohl 1956) in
literature (both versions are illustrated and briey enumerated in Figure 1 as a know-
ledge pyramid). The sequential stages (viewed as an academic learning process) are
remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate and create (Anderson and Krathwohl
2001). The learning stages shown in Figure 1 are a bottom-up process.
It was proposed that the model in Figure 1 can be used as a guideline to interview
the e-business subject matter specialists (many participating from other business
units), and ask them to describe their knowledge management methodology.
METHODS
An action research and reection-in-action approach was applied on an existing NPD
team. The team consisted of specialists e-collaborating across business units from three
different countries. The product was a mobile phone package design (hardware and
software) that was intended for a resale through the dealer and franchise networks
(business-to-business). The team was interviewed as a focus group workshop, using
nominal brainstorm technique, on three different meeting days. The underlying phil-
osophy was to observe expert practice/behaviour without preconceived notions. How-
ever, in this case study, the cognitive domain (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001) was used
as an a priori framework. This was done to save time and improve the brainstorm out-
come quality at the request of both the focus group members and their company.
A team information package was prepared explaining the research project which
was approved by the case study company. The package contained a synthesis of the
Figure 1
Learning Stages and Processes in E-business Cognitive Domain
Source: Case writers notes.
literature review along with the model shown in Figure 1. The nominal brainstorming
approach was used. First, the subject matter experts were asked to individually draw
and explain the process of knowledge management that they felt was most commonly
used in their community of practice when designing new mobile phone services/prod-
ucts for e-businesses. Then, in order to arrive at an overall consensus, small groups
prioritized and improved the individual models.
On the rst meeting day, all subject matter experts were told to reuse anything pro-
vided in the literature review and diagrams, and everyone was particularly encouraged
to be factual and think beyond the a priori models documented in literature. Next, on
the second meeting day (a week later), the individuals were brought together into small
groups (randomly selected) to reach a consensus on their most common knowledge
management methodology. The competing models were presented by each group, and
all ideas were ranked by each subject matter expert. All subject matter experts were
given copies of all competing models and notes. On the third meeting day (a week
later), the nal version of the e-business knowledge management model was deter-
mined through a consensus. The research team improved the aesthetics of the drawings
and then disseminated the results to the team, inviting corrections and feedback.
FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS
The results from the e-business subject matter experts consisted mostly of two diagrams
along with explanatory notes and examples. Each of their diagrams is explained
using the notes from the focus group, expressed in the nomenclature of knowledge
management and educational psychology theories.
Knowledge Management Business Model
Figure 2 is a simplied conceptual overview of the e-business process. It shows the
sequential business functions going left to right across the middle (planning, NPD, mar-
keting, etc.), with a circular knowledge management cycle in the centre, starting with
consumer needs gathering, and concluding with hopefully a complete design. This is
a common framework that can be found with slight variations in management science
literature. There are three interesting elements in the e-business conceptual model
(Figure 2). First, the focus group acknowledges the role of tacit and explicit knowledge
sharing. Second, the group shows a knowledge management process superimposed
over the inner cycle (along the top of the diagram), which links business goals with
post-NPD functions such as marketing and sales. Third, it includes a feedback loop,
which the research team labelled organizational learning (along the bottom of the dia-
gram), that brings new information from the downstream e-business units (including
external supply chain distributors and clients), which serves as useful input into future
designs. The subject matter experts noted that tacit knowledge could enter the process
anywhere at anytime, individually or as a shared conceptual realization described as
being on the same page.
The interesting nding is that the design experts claimed they had the instinct,
mental models and intuition for good mobile phone service/designs, but needed the
help of other business functions to transform their concepts into practical designs
to comply with manufacturing constraints (packaging, regulations, etc.), and also to
leverage potential economies-of-scale (which features could be done cheaply with
supplies in mass assembly versus hard-to-do). Also there were two unique aspects of
this model. The rst was that the team was able to more easily share all three different
Figure 2
Knowledge Management Cycle in E-business
types of knowledge (particularly tacit), but mostly had to codify its ideas (in diagrams
such as this), to externalize its designs for feedback and approval from other business
units. This knowledge articulation process (externalization between units) was done
using storytelling supplemented by drawing, writing, speaking and reecting on pre-
vious designs (as well as business strategies).
NPD Team Learning Model
The design focus group was asked to elaborate on how it learnt and shared knowledge
in its community of practice. The group provided examples of the knowledge artefacts
used in the mobile phone design methodology. Explicit knowledge mostly refers to
documents such as procedures, policies, information, codied theories and codied
models. The group explained that espoused theories were explicit ideas that they
could verbalize or write about. Reections were described as hindsight, explicit
understandings based on thinking through what has happened before in the market.
Most of their creative work involved tacit knowledge such as internally constructed
perceptions of a pretty mobile case or screen saver (sometimes a picture could be
offered, while other times not). Theories-in-use were described as how consumers
really use the productsdesigners think they know this from their own use but it
is possible that subtle different patterns could exist that might be observable, if one
were to study a consumer using a mobile phone for many hours. For example, recent
NPD telecommunication e-business studies noted that multicultural learning style
and personality factors have a signicant impact on individual and team performance
(Strang 2009).
Mental models represented a cognitive understanding of a design, or a proposed in-
novative improvement to a design. Organizational culture represented the often unsaid
accepted routines that the team was allowed to do as compared with written policies
and procedures. This was an example of what inuenced the team to articulate the
top-down sequence in the learning model. Upon reection, it became obvious that an
existing tacit model was the starting point for mental elaborations in the design process.
Likewise ofce practices (time reporting, dress code) were part of the organizations
culture and sometimes different from the written policy.
Social culture referred to the manner in which the community of practice behaved,
working mostly at home, how often they communicated with one another, norms for
chatting and collaborating online, the frequency in using e-business software (accessed
from their own company supplied low-fee mobiles), and so on. Intuition referred to
their best guess of customer behaviour, which they could often partly articulate, but
still retained a tacit view internally. Innate was a less used type, but still recognized as
distinct from tacit. Innate included unobservable and unknown consumer behaviour.
(Would parents pay an overdue mobile phone bill for their child? How many mobile
screens would each age group download and at what cost?)
Reex referred more to the ergonomics of the mobile phone such as keyboard layout,
screen lighting and ring tones. Genetic culture referred to consumer demographics
such as the hidden behaviours of homogeneous groups, for example, native Chinese
consumers rarely use their mobile except for necessary communication but no one
knew why. Instinct is a community of practice members ability to come up with a
gut feeling without thinking about it, such as a response to a proposed design within
12 seconds. The team did not know exactly how that process worked, but they were
condent that often their original instinct was correct (after reecting on this).
Organizational Learning Model
Finally, the knowledge management/organization learning methodology (Figure 3)
was produced by the focus group. At the centre of the model, there are two mirrored
knowledge management pyramids. The right pyramid lists the six sequential stages of
the academic learning process in the cognitive domain (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001),
reproduced from Figure 1these are bottom-up stages. The left pyramid reveals the
community of practice methodology, which also contains six top-down representative
phases suggested by the focus group. A systemic organizational learning feedback loop
(returning to model) completes the knowledge management pyramid. It is obvious
in looking at this diagram that the a priori constructs did inuence the focus group
outcomes and they were meant to serve as a guide (allowing them to skip reinventing
the wheel if they felt inclined to do so).
The unique characteristic of the knowledge cycle (Figure 3) is a top-down process
ow that uses three stages from the taxonomy of learning stages (in different phases).
Instead of starting with a review of the available knowledge (as one might do in an
academic learning context), the subject matter experts rst examined existing models
from their own community of practice and beyondnamely literature and competitors.
Although the team seemed creative, they explained that in an e-business, their motto
was not to reinvent the wheel if a solution or concept could be reused or adapted.
Often there were tacit and innate (not yet embodied) concepts embedded in their
own previous designs and those of their competitors. The focus group explained that
by looking at working solutions with a new clients needs in mind, they were able to
see new possibilities (reframe their perspectives). The experience of the team might
also explain why they approached the cognitive domain model in reverse direction,
since they were essentially ne-tuning a proven (internal or competitive) model to
innovate it. In the academic context, the assumption was that students are not ex-
perts and therefore start learning the basic knowledge of denitions, concepts and
Figure 3
Knowledge Management/Organization Learning Pyramids
principles, then expand by building on this using analysis, synthesis and evaluation
of real world data.
The rst model phase at the top of the knowledge management pyramid was a
critical process (Figure 3), with the rest falling into place, and more easily explained.
The evaluation consisted of brainstorming and ranking techniques that the community
of practice used, to sort through the possible ideas and best practices in order to select
a few models to concentrate on. Next the selected models were analyzed in terms
of t (and gap) with planned mobile services/designs for e-businesses. This often
included consumer focus group input, client behaviour pattern (data mining), client
surveys and market intelligence data gathering. This was not where new ideas were
created, but instead where the highly ranked ideas were ratied based on empirical
evidence. Once a new design was conceptualized to t a need, the gap in making the
design practical was decreased by using a transforming process of completing the
blueprint using existing explicit, tacit (or innate) knowledge, as a shared community
of practice activity.
The nal two phases of dissemination (sharing with other business units) refer to
putting the conceptual design into a physical design; this is done by using explicit
knowledge codication activities. A systemic feedback loop was added to show the
organizational learning mechanism that operated to provide competitive advantage
and sustainability by recognizing benets, errors as well as new potential opportunities
(gained from all stakeholders in the e-business supply chain). Overall, this (Figure 3)
was a very different methodology as compared with any educational psychology
theory or generally accepted research method.
Organization Capability and Business Practice Implications
Albeit, the return-on-investment was not specically assessed from these NPD design
teams, as noted in the introduction, the case study company (Telstra) performed very
well, including the mobile new product development e-business unit. Further, one of
the most signicant perceived benets from research such as this was increased man-
agement recognition of the value in training the staff. The quality of the knowledge
management/learning models produced by the design teams in this study made
positive impressions on the executive management team as well as the learning and
development unit.
An indirect result of documenting the team development process was that the
case study company increased its funding into staff development and knowledge
sharing. For example, in 200809 the case study companys knowledge management/
learning development funding was AUD 104 million (representing around AUD 2,800
per employee); it included 649,274 online knowledge/learning course completions
and over 2,000 employees participated in frontline leadership programmes (www.
bizcs.co.nz/page.asp?E_page=416432&3648=431731). Additionally, twenty-three
employees completed the executive leadership programme while 227 enhanced job-
specic training courses were developed for NPD and knowledge-worker staff (www.
telstramarketingacademy.com.au). The models from this project were shared with
course designers to facilitate knowledge transfer for future NPD and cross-functional
staff teams.
Theoretically, the NPD models from this project have made the most signicant im-
pact by documenting the process to educate new team members. These tacit processes
are being promoted in the case study company through community of practices as
well as through their internal training programmes (as noted above). By having a
high-performing NPD e-business unit articulate these methodologies, relevant case
study material for courses are being developed at the case study company learning
and development unit, as well as at their marketing academy. Further, having these
methodologies documented will now give the existing (and future) teams an easier
starting point upon which to share and improve on these models. In fact, these NPD
process models are especially useful for cross-functional NPD team members that
reside in different geographic units (outside the head ofce).
Quantitatively, knowledge sharing initiatives related to this project have resulted
in a positive return-on-investment. Company gathered statistics indicated that 5,700
managers completed the online modules by the end of the half-year review (February
2009) and two new online people manager skill building modules were developed
and launched.
CONCLUSIONS
The catalyst for this project was that a successful team at a protable multinational
mobile phone company appeared to have an unusual design methodology (as com-
pared to knowledge management or educational psychology literature). The research
objective was to capture and contrast the community of practice methods with
knowledge management and educational psychology theories synthesized during the
literature review. Action research, reection-in-action and nominal group techniques
were applied with focus group workshops and interviews to gather the data. The result
was two models (with explanatory notes and examples) produced by the focus group
to externalize their tacit processes (Figures 2 and 3).
The focus group explained how it acquired knowledge, from where knowledge
originated and how the participants perceived this on a continuum (innate, tacit and
explicit). They provided examples of common artefacts from their community of
practice. The focus group conrmed the important role that tacit knowledge plays
during innovation, in particular, how mental models and theories-in-use become de-
signs via organizational learning feedback. The key nding was that the knowledge
management methodology contained three similar phases (apply, analyze and eva-
luate) when compared to the cognitive domain, but they were ordered differently. The
method operated in the reverse direction when compared to the cognitive domain.
The methodology started at the model discovery and evaluation phases, whereas the
cognitive domain started at the bottom with knowledge remembering, ending at the
evaluation and creating stage. The methodology relied on a systemic organizational
learning feedback loop for sustainability. The group conrmed the important role
that tacit knowledge plays during innovation, in particular, how mental models and
theories-in-use become designs via organizational learning feedback.
The key nding was that their NPD knowledge management methodology con-
tained three similar phases (apply, analyze, evaluate) when compared to the six
learning taxonomy cognitive domain stages, but they were ordered differently. The
method operated in the reverse direction when compared with the cognitive domain.
Their methodology started at the top with model and evaluation phases, whereas
the cognitive domain started at the bottom with knowledge remembering, ending at
evaluation and the creating stage. The methodology relied on a systemic organiza-
tional learning feedback loop for sustainability.
In terms of practical impact, one of the most signicant perceived benets from
this research was the increased management recognition of the return-on-investment
value for training e-business staff. The quality of the knowledge management/learning
models from this case study (and other researches) made positive impressions on the
executive management team as well as the learning and development unit (namely
the funding of courses which used these models in their case studies). In fact, to date
over AUD 104 million have been spent for internal knowledge worker training. The
theoretical value of these NPD knowledge management models contributed to the
e-business course designs (as case studies). Furthermore, the tacit NPD processes
have now been externalized into explicit models which give the existing (and future)
e-business teams an easier starting point to share and expand the methodologies (put-
ting cross-functional and geographically dispersed teams on the same theoretical page).
Finally, the case study models and research methodology have become a documented
organizational capability.
Future research could replicate and extend this study using other methods, more
industries and/or different NPD e-business departments and teams.
REFERENCES
Ambrosini, V. and C. Bowman. 2001. Tacit Knowledge: Some Suggestions for Operationalization,
Journal of Management Studies, 38(6): 81129.
Anderson, L. and D. Krathwohl. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A
Revision of Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
Awad, E.M. and H. Ghaziri. 2004. Knowledge Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Backman, M., S. Borjesson and S. Setterberg. 2007. Working with Concepts in the Fuzzy Front
End: Exploring the Context for Innovation for Different Types of Concepts at Volvo Cars,
R&D Management, 37(1): 1728.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., A. Gonzalez and R. Sabherwal. 2004. Knowledge Management: Challenges,
Solutions, and Technologies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Beckett, R.C. 2000. A Characterisation of Corporate as a Knowledge Management System,
Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(4): 31119.
Bloom, B.S. and D.R. Krathwohl (eds). 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classication
of Educational Goals. New York: Longman.
Boudreau, J.W. and P.M. Ramstad. 1997. Measuring Intellectual Capital: Learning from Financial
History, Human Resource Management, 36(3): 34356.
Brown, A. 1998. Organisational Culture. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall.
Brown, J.S. and P. Duguid. 1991. Organisational Learning and Communities of Practice:
Towards a Unied View of Working, Learning, and Innovation, Organisational Science,
2(1): 4057.
Burton-Jones, A. 1999. Knowledge Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chang, D.R. and H. Cho. 2008. Organisational Memory Inuences New Product Success,
Journal of Business Research, 61: 13 23.
Chomsky, N. 1959. Review of Verbal Behavior, Language, 35: 2658.
Cohen, W.M. and D. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning
and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 12852.
Davenport, T.H. and L. Prusak. 2000, Working KnowledgeHow Organisations Manage What
They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Edgington, T. 2005. Putting Learning Systems to Work: Applying Learning Technology to
Innovative Project Development, eLearn Magazine. Boston, MA.
Edvinsson, L. 1997. Developing Intellectual Capital at Skandia, Long Range Planning, 30(3):
36673.
Ettlie, J.E. and J.M. Elsenbach. 2007. Modied Stage-Gate Regimes in New Product Develop-
ment, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(2): 2033.
Forman, J. 2001. When Stories Create an Organisations Future, in J.W. Cortada and J.A. Woods
(eds). The Knowledge Management Yearbook 20002001, pp. 23135. New York: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Goleman, D. 1998. What Makes a Leader?, Harvard Business Review, 76(6): 92102.
. 2000. Leadership that Gets Results, Harvard Business Review, 78(2): 7890
Gordon, S., M. Tarafdar, R. Cook, R. Maksimoski and B. Rogowitz. 2008. Improving the Front
End of Innovation with Information Technology: Smart Companies use IT to be More
Effective and Efcient in the Early Stages of the Innovation Process, Research Technology
Management, 51(3): 5059.
Gronros, C. 1994. From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a Paradigm Shift
in Marketing, Management Decision, 32(2): 420.
Hamel, G. and C.K. Prahalad. 1994. Competing for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Hampden-Turner, C. and F. Trompenaars. 2000. Building Cross-Cultural CompetenceHow to
Create Wealth from Conicting Values. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Handy, C. 2001. A World of Fleas and Elephants, in W. Bennis, G.M. Spreitzer and
T.G. Cummings (eds). The Future of LeadershipTodays Top Leadership Thinkers Speak to
Tomorrows Leaders, pp. 2940. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hansen, C.D. and W.M. Kahnweiler. 1993. Storytelling: An Instrument for Understanding the
Dynamics of Corporate Relationships, Human Relations, 46(12): 1391409.
Hansen, M.T., N. Nohria and T. Tierney. 2001. Whats Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?,
in J.W. Cortada and J.A.Woods (eds). The Knowledge Management Yearbook 20002001,
pp. 5569. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Holden, N.J. 2002. Cross-Cultural ManagementA Knowledge Perspective. Harlow, UK: Pearson
Education.
Horvath, J.A. 2001. Working with Tacit Knowledge, in J.W. Cortada and J.A. Woods (eds).
The Knowledge Management Yearbook 20002001, pp. 3451. New York: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Johnson, A.R. 2001. Competitive Intelligence and Competitor Analysis as Knowledge Manage-
ment Applications, in J.W. Cortada and J.A. Woods (eds). The Knowledge Management
Yearbook 20002001, pp. 8597. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kavali, S.G., N.X. Tzokas and M.J. Saren. 1999. Relationship Marketing as an Ethical Approach;
Philosophical and Managerial Considerations, Management Decision, 37(7): 57381.
Kaye, S. 2001. Some Proven Ways to Promote the Exchange of Ideas, in J.W. Cortada and
J.A. Woods (eds). The Knowledge Management Yearbook 20002001, pp. 3918. New York:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kikawada, K. and D. Holtshouse. 2001. The Knowledge Perspective in the Xerox Group, in
I. Nonaka and D. Teece (eds). Managing Industrial KnowledgeCreation, Transfer and Utiliza-
tion, pp. 283314. London: SAGE Publications.
Kim, W.C. and R. Mauborgne. 1999. Strategy, Value Innovation and the Knowledge Economy,
Sloan Management Review, 40(3): 4154.
Kodama, M. 2005. How two Japanese High-tech Companies Achieved Rapid Innovation via
Strategic Community Networks, Strategy & Leadership, 33(6): 3947.
Kyriakopoulos, K. and K. deRuyter. 2004. Knowledge Stocks and Information Flows in New
Product Development, Journal of Management Studies, 41: 1469498.
Lank, E. 1997. Leveraging Invisible Assets: The Human Factor, Long Range Planning, 30(3):
40612.
Leonard, D. and D. Sensiper. 1998. The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation, California
Management Review, 40(3): 11232.
Lesser, E. and L. Prusak. 2001. Communities of Practice, Social Capital and Organisational
Knowledge, in J.W. Cortada and J.A. Woods (eds). The Knowledge Management Yearbook
20002001, pp. 25159. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Massey, A.P., M.M. Montoya-Weiss and T.M. ODriscoll. 2002. Knowledge Management in
Pursuit of Performance: Insights from Nortel networks, MIS Quarterly, 26(3): 26989.
Moon, S., D. Birchall, S. Williams and C. Vrasidas. 2005. Developing Design Principles for an
e-learning Programme for SME Managers to Support Accelerated Learning at the Workplace,
Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6): 37084.
Moorman, C. and A.S. Miner. 1997. The Impact of Organizational Memory on New Product
Performance and Creativity, Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1): 91106.
Nickols, F. 2001. The Knowledge in Knowledge Management, in J.W. Cortada and J.A. Woods
(eds). The Knowledge Management Yearbook 20002001. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann,
pp. 1221.
Nonaka, I. and D. Teece (eds). 2001. Managing Industrial KnowledgeCreation, Transfer and
Utilization. London: SAGE Publications.
Nonaka, I. and N. Konno. 1998. The Concept of ba: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Cre-
ation, California Management Review, 40(3): 4054.
Nonaka, I., R. Toyama and N. Konno. 2001. SECI, Ba, and Leadership: a Unied Model of Dy-
namic Knowledge Creation, in Ikujiro Nonaka and D. Teece (eds). Managing Industrial
KnowledgeCreation, Transfer and Utilization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pentina, I. and D. Strutton. 2007. Information Processing and New Product Success: A Meta-
analysis, Australian Journal of Innovation Management, 10(2): 14975.
Polanyi, M. 1997. Tacit Knowledge, in L. Prusak (ed.). Knowledge in OrganisationsResources
for the Knowledge-based Economy, pp. 13546. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Prahlad, C.K. and V. Ramaswamy. 2000. Co-opting Customer Competence, Harvard Business
Review, 78(1): 7987.
Quinn, J.B., P. Andersen and S. Finkelstein. 1996. Managing Professional Intellect: Making
the Most of the Best, Harvard Business Review, 74(2): 7180.
Reid, S.E. and U.D. Brentani. 2004. The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Dis-
continuous Innovations: A Theoretical Model, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
21(3): 17084.
Robey, D., M.C. Boudreau and G.M. Rose. 2000. Information Technology and Organizational
Learning: A Review and Assessment of Research, Accounting Management and Information
Technologies, 10(2): 12555.
Roussev, B. and Y. Rousseva. 2004. Active Learning through Modeling: Introduction to Software
Development in the Business Curriculum, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education,
2(2): 12152.
Rungtusanatham, M., L.M. Ellram, S.P. Sieferd and S. Salik. 2004. Toward a Typology of Busi-
ness Education in the Internet Age, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2(2):
10120.
Sarin, S. and C. McDermott. 2003. The Effect of team Leader Characteristics on Learning,
Knowledge Application, and Performance of Cross-Functional New Product Development
teams, Decision Sciences, 34(4): 70739.
Sawhney, M., G. Verona and E. Prandelli. 2005. Collaborating to Create: The Internet as a Plat-
form for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
19(4): 417.
Schein, E.H. 1993. How can Organisations Learn Faster? Lessons from the Green Room, Sloan
Management Review, Winter issue, pp. 8592.
Seel, R. 2001. Anxiety and Incompetence in the Large GroupA Psychodynamaic Perspective,
Journal of Organisational Change Management, 14(5): 493503.
Senge, P.M., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross and B. Smith. 1999. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:
Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organisation. New York: Doubleday.
Sherman, J.D., D. Berkowitz and W.E. Sounder. 2005. New Product Development Performance
and the Interaction of Cross-functional Integration and Knowledge Management, Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 22(3): 399411.
Sternberg, R.J., G.B. Forsythe, J. Hedlund, J.A. Horvath, R.K. Wagner, W.M. Williams, S.A. Snook
and E.L. Grigorenko. 2000. Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Stewart, T.A. 2000. Intellectual CapitalThe New Wealth of Organisations. London: Nicholas
Brealey Publishing.
Strang, K.D. 2008. Collaborative Synergy and Leadership in e-business, in J. Salmons and
L. Wilson (eds). Handbook of Research on Electronic Collaboration and Organisational Synergy,
pp. 40934. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
. 2009. Assessing Team Member Interpersonal Competencies in New Product Development
e-projects, International Journal of Project & Organisation Management, 1(4): 33557.
Strang, K.D. 2010, Articulating Tacit Knowledge in Multinational E-collaboration on New
Product Designs, in P. Francq (ed.). Collaborative Search and Communities of Interest: Trends
in Knowledge Sharing and Assessment. London: ISI Research.
Sveiby, K.E. 1997. The New Organisational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-based
Assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Swap, W., D. Leonard, M. Shields and L. Abrams. 2001. Using Mentoring and Storytelling to
Transfer Knowledge in the Workplace, Journal of Management Information Systems, 40(3):
95114.
Swierczek, F. W. 1994. Culture and Conict in Joint Ventures in Asia, International Journal of
Project Management, 12(1): 3947.
Takeuchi, H. 2001. Towards a Universal Management Concept of Knowledge, in I. Nonaka
and D. Teece (eds). Managing Industrial KnowledgeCreation, Transfer and Utilization,
pp. 31529. London: SAGE Publications.
Teece, D.J. 2001. Strategies for Managing Knowledge Assets: The Role of Firm Structure and
Industrial Context, in I. Nonaka and D. Teece (eds). Managing Industrial Knowledge Creation,
Transfer and Utilization, pp. 12544. London: SAGE Publications.
Teigland, R. 2000. Communities of Practice at an Internet Firm: Netovation vs On-Time
Performance, in E. Lesser, M.A. Fontaine and J.A. Slusher (eds). Knowledge and Commu-
nities, pp. 15178. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Trompenaars, F. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business.
London: Economics Books.
Ulwick, A.W. 2002. Turn Customer Input Into Innovation, Harvard Business Review, 80(1):
9197.
Valle, S. and L. Avella. 2003. Cross-functionality and Leadership of the New Product Develop-
ment Teams, Australian Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1): 3247.
von Krough, G., K. Ichijo and H. Takeuchi. 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Walsh, J.P. and G.R. Ungson. 1997. Organisational Memory, in L. Prusak (ed.). Knowledge in
OrganisationsResources for the Knowledge-based Economy, pp. 14775. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Wenger, E.C. 1999. Communities of Practice: The Key to Knowledge Strategy, The Journal of
the Institute for Knowledge Management, 1(Fall): 4863.
Wenger, E.C. and W.M. Snyder. 2000. Communities of Practice: The Organisational Frontier,
Harvard Business Review, 78(1): 13945.
Wiig, K.M. 2002. Knowledge Management: An Emerging Discipline Rooted in a Long History,
Knowledge Research Institute.
Zack, M.H. 1999, Developing a Knowledge Strategy, California Management Review, 41(3):
12545.

Comparing Learning and Knowledge Management Theories in An Australian

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Comparing Learning and Knowledge Management Theories in An Australian

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

http://ajc.sagepub.

http://ajc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- May 21, 2010 Version of Record >>

S-ar putea să vă placă și