From learning

organisation to
knowledge
entrepreneur
Jennifer Rowley
Jennifer Rowley is Head of School of
Management and Social Sciences at
Edge Hill College of Higher Education,
Ormskirk, UK.

Keywords
The author
Jennifer Rowley is Head of School of Management and
Social Sciences at Edge Hill College of Higher Education,
Ormskirk, UK.
Keywords
Learning organizations, Knowled
ge workers,
Knowledge management,
Entrepreneurs
Abstract
Establishes the clear link between learning and
knowledge, and proposes a simple model, which makes
this relationship explicit. A range of definitions of the
learning organisation are drawn from the literature. Much
of this literature makes little reference to that which is
being learned although those authors who have
introduced the concepts of the learning laboratory, the
knowledge creating organisation and the knowing
organisation acknowledge the significance of knowledge
in organisational development and learning. Other
perspectives on the organisational processes associated
with knowledge come from the recent literature on
knowledge management. It is argued that indiscriminate
knowledge creation will not lead to organisational
learning, and that knowledge is not something that can
be viewed as a neutral tool in the learning process. A
number of characteristics of knowledge need to be
recognised, and accommodated in learning processes and
knowledge management. Finally, the concept of a
knowledge entrepreneur is proposed.
Learning organizations, Knowledge workers,
Knowledge management, Entrepreneurs
Abstract
Establishes the clear link between learning and
knowledge, and proposes a simple model, which makes
this relationship explicit. A range of definitions of the
learning organisation are drawn from the literature. Much
of this literature makes little reference to that which is
being learned although those authors who have
introduced the concepts of the learning laboratory, the
knowledge creating organisation and the knowing
organisation acknowledge the significance of knowledge
in organisational development and learning. Other
perspectives on the organisational processes associated
with knowledge come from the recent literature on
knowledge management. It is argued that indiscriminate
knowledge creation will not lead to organisational
learning, and that knowledge is not something that can
be viewed as a neutral tool in the learning process. A
number of characteristics of knowledge need to be
recognised, and accommodated in learning processes and
knowledge management. Finally, the concept of a
knowledge entrepreneur is proposed.

Electronic access

Journal of Knowledge Management

Volume 4 . Number 1 . 2000 . pp. 715
# MCB University Press . ISSN 1367-3270

7
 From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur
Jennifer Rowley
Introduction
During the 1990s the concept of the ``learning
organisation'' has attracted much attention
and generated a significant literature. The
interest is related to the recognition that
organisations must change and develop if they
are to survive and prosper in a global
economy. Senge (1990, p. 4) says: ``the most
successful corporation of the 1990s will be
something called a learning organisation. The
ability to learn faster than your competitors
may be the only sustainable competitive
advantage''. The literature on learning
organisations and learning companies is rich
in case studies and advice on how to work
towards a learning organisation in different
types of organisations, with different cultures
and values (e.g. Garrett, 1987; Lessem, 1991;
Thurbin, 1994; Pearn et al., 1995). In general
this literature has a focus on the process of
learning, with little explicit reference to what
is learnt, which presumably includes
knowledge and skills.
This article first establishes the clear link
between learning and knowledge, and
proposes a simple model, which makes this
relationship explicit. A range of definitions or
descriptors of the learning organisation are
drawn from the literature. Much of this
literature makes little reference to that which
is being learnt, i.e. knowledge, although,
those authors who have introduced the
concepts of the learning laboratory, the
knowledge creating organisation and the
knowing organisation acknowledge the
significance of knowledge in organisational
development and learning. Other perspectives
on the organisational processes associated
with knowledge come from the recent
literature on knowledge management; some
of these emphasise the social construction of
knowledge. We argue that indiscriminate
knowledge creation will not lead to
organisational learning, and that knowledge is
not something that can be viewed as a neutral
tool in the learning process. A number of
characteristics of knowledge need to be
recognised, and accommodated in learning
processes and knowledge management.
Finally, the concept of a knowledge
entrepreneur is proposed; an organisation
that is a knowledge entrepreneur recognises
the multi-faceted nature of knowledge, and
defines cultures, values and systems that
encourage appropriate organisational
8
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 4 . Number 1 . 2000 . 715
learning. Knowledge entrepreneurship can
not be achieved without an understanding of
the knowledge, which the organisation, and
its learners need, to achieve its vision.
The relationship between learning,
knowledge and information
. To learn is to acquire knowledge of a
subject or skill as a result of study,
experience or teaching.
. Knowledge is knowing, familiar gained by
experience; person's range of
information; a theoretical or practical
understanding of; the sum of what is
known.
. Information is informing; telling; thing
told; items of knowledge; news (Oxford
English Dictionary).
These definitions confirm the close association
between the terms learning, information and
knowledge, in their common usage. Rowley
(1998) provides a comprehensive review of
different perspectives on the nature of
knowledge and information from fields such as
communication theory, library and
information science, information systems,
organisational development, and cognitive
sciences. She argues that the differing
perspectives, with their roots in different
disciplines, arise from people's preoccupation
with the role that information can play in
processes such as decision making, learning or
innovation, whereas information professionals
and information systems designers, the
professionals concerned with information,
need to be able to impose structure on
information in order to gather it into their
systems, and need therefore to treat
information as an object and to create a
systems view of information. She concludes
that the concept of information and knowledge
will be defined by the systems, practices and
cases, which feature information, and that
therefore multiple definitions of information
are acceptable. These different perspectives
should be viewed as offering richness and not
untidiness. In a world in which information
technology is a major agent in the erosion of
barriers between disciplines and cultures, it is
important to continue the debate about these
different definitions.
This stance is consistent with that taken by
Pearn et al. (1995), who declined to define
 From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur
Jennifer Rowley
learning as a process, on the basis that: ``It is
not necessary to become embroiled in precise
discussions over the definition of learning. It
is sufficient to point out to those whose mind-
set expects or even requires a formal
definition before they can take something
seriously, that for most of this century,
researchers and philosophers, for even longer,
have been disagreeing over the precise
definition of learning. In reality there is no
one definition that meets all requirements.
Instead there can be many different levels of
definition and many different definitions (we
prefer conceptualisations) co-existing on the
same level'' (Pearn et al., pp. 12-13).
Nevertheless, despite the diversity of
conceptualisation around information and its
associated concepts there is a consensus that
there is an intimate relationship between
learning, information and knowledge at the
level of the individual. There is some debate
surrounding the concept of organisation
learning, and whether it can be distinguished
from individual learning (e.g. Cummings and
Worley, 1997). Some argue that organisations
differ from individuals in that they develop
and maintain learning systems that not only
influence their immediate members, but also
are then transmitted to others by means of
organisational histories and norms (Fiol and
Lyles, 1985). However, in seeking to model
the process of organisational learning,
organisational learning theorists draw on the
similarities between individual and
organisational learning. It would seem
appropriate therefore, to hypothesise that the
relationship between knowledge, information
and learning is equally as intimate in
organisational learning as it is with individual
learning. Figure 1 expresses very simply how
these concepts might be viewed as being
linked. Information is accepted into an
organisation from a range of different sources.
The organisation conceptualises that
information in a way that is consistent with its
norms, cognitive frameworks, context and
cultures. This conceptualisation process can
be described as learning. Learning leads to
Figure 1 Towards the knowledge entrepreneur
9
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 4 . Number 1 . 2000 . 715
knowledge, which may be either tacit
(embedded in minds and activities) or explicit
(stated as in verbal communication or in
documents). Knowledge is available to
support and inform decisions, behaviour and
actions. The final stage is the feedback from
those actions, which, in turn, may generate
further information, which forms the basis for
further learning. Intermediate feedback loops
may also be evident between the individual
stages in the process. The model in Figure 1 is
proposed with the very elementary objective
of explicating the close nature of the
relationship between information, knowledge
and learning. If these relationships are
acknowledged, the interesting questions is
how organisations create appropriate
conditions in order to support the type of
knowledge processing that can lead to
effective organisational learning.
Learning organisations
Senge (1990) is regarded as a seminal work
concerning the learning organisation. He
identifies the five disciplines of the learning
organisation to be:
(1) systems thinking;
(2) personal mastery;
(3) mental models;
(4) building shared vision;
(5) team learning.
Many other authors have sought to express
their understanding of the concept of the
learning organisation. Among these are:
. Facilitates the learning of all its members,
and continuously transforms itself (Pedler
et al., 1990).
. Facilitates participative and innovative
development with and between people and
institutions commercially, technologically
and socially (Lessem, 1991).
. Forms the strategy, structure and culture
of the enterprise into a learning system
(Stahl et al., 1992).
 From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur
Jennifer Rowley
. Encourages double loop learning, in
which learning informs and changes
organisational objectives and impacts on
strategic directions (Argyris, 1990).
. Responds to changes in the internal and
external environment of the organisation
by detecting and correcting error in
organisational theory-in-use, and
embedding the results of that inquiry in
private images and shared maps of
organisations (Argyris and Schon, 1978).
. Has as its primary aim rapid and continual
regeneration of the total organisation and
that depends on rapid and continual
learning (Moss-Jones, 1992).
In general, then, these conceptualisations
reveal a focus on the learning process and its
association with change and organisational
development, often with only limited
attention to the information that the learning
vehicle and the knowledge that is the output
from learning. The central thrust of the theory
and practice around the learning organisation
has been the contribution to the concept of
organisational learning. For example, Senge's
two seminal contributions (1990) began to
raise awareness that:
. There is an important sense in which
organisations as a whole learn.
. Some organisations are a lot better at
learning than others.
. Organisational learning is critical to the
survival and success of organisations in
the future.
Thus organisational learning is perceived to
be intimately associated with survival and
future success. This perceived association has
spawned a whole host of books on the process
of organisational learning (e.g. Garrett, 1987;
Starkey, 1996; Pearn et al., 1995). Many of
these also recognise the link between learning
and the continuous improvement that is
central to the quality literature (Honey,
1991). Lessem (1991) takes this connection
further and proposes that there is a link
between quality and learning, such that
learning is the process, and quality is the end.
Burgoyne (1988) referred to natural
management development occurring within
newly created entrepreneurial organisations.
Pearn et al. (1995) argue that such
organisations may be viewed as natural
learning organisations, in that they have many
of the qualities to which learning
organisations aspire, including:
10
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 4 . Number 1 . 2000 . 715
. Being quick to react because chains of
command are short.
. Mistakes are felt quickly because the
customer is close.
. Being adaptive, and not constrained by
elaborate structures or stable cultures.
. Having energy and a sense of challenge.
. Being focused.
. Experiencing constant change.
Another factor that might be significant in
such organisations is that there relatively few
systems and a limited explicit knowledge
base. Much of the knowledge base is held in
the minds of the people. Accordingly, such
organisations do not face the same challenges
in interfacing with, and using, a complex
knowledge base, which embraces both explicit
and implicit knowledge.
From learning to knowledge creation
Some authors have recognised the intimate
relationship between knowledge and learning.
Garvin (1993), for example, has a focus on
creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge.
Leonard-Barton (1992) develops the concept
of the learning laboratory, which is defined as
``an organisation dedicated to knowledge
creation, collection and control''. One of the
four sub-systems of a learning laboratory is
``garnering and integrating knowledge''. In
addition, Senge and Sterman (1992) in their
work on the learning laboratory start to identity
the components of learning, namely: a focus on
conceptualisation; promotion of reflection;
evaluation of the role of the computer;
continual making of links between the virtual
world and the real world. Here the role of
information systems makes a brief appearance.
Stata (1989) notes that organisations can learn
only as fast as the slowest link within them, and
that they must develop institutional
mechanisms to retain knowledge. From a
different perspective, Schein (1993) identifies
three distinct types of learning: knowledge
acquisition and in sight; habit and skill
learning; and emotional conditioning. These
authors start to recognise the role of knowledge
in organisational learning, but do not take their
analysis any further.
Nonaka (1988) has arguably been one of the
most influential proponents of the knowledge
creating organisation; he recognised that
concept of top-down or deductive management,
 From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur
Jennifer Rowley
and bottom-up or inductive management are
concerned with an organisation's capacity to
process information. But information
processing needs to be coupled with knowledge
creation. Nonaka's (1991) concept of a
knowledge creating company is concerned with
making individual insight available for testing
and use by the company as a whole. Knowledge
creating companies constantly encourage the
process whereby personal knowledge is made
available to others (articulation) for them to use
to extend their own tacit knowledge base
(internalisation). Nonaka (1991) argues that the
key to competitive advantage lies with the
organisation, and is latent in the organisation,
its memory and its potential. The role of
management is to provide a conceptual
framework that helps employees to make sense
of information. Nonaka's (1991) primary
concern is with the knowledge creation
associated with internalisation and articulation.
He does, however, also identify two other
patterns of knowledge creation in an
organisation. Those associated with:
. the transfer of tacit information between
individuals (tacit to tacit), as for example
when individuals learn by watching
others, and
. the transfer of explicit information across
an organisation (explicit to explicit), as is
evident in the exchange and dissemination
of both print and electronic documents.
Nonaka (1991) is less interested in these two
processes, because he argues that they do not
extend the company's knowledge base. Yet,
since all four patterns exist in dynamic
interaction, all four must be of concern to an
organisation. In this article, we argue that the
knowledge creating company needs to
understand and value all of these interactions
and needs an understanding of the nature of
knowledge and the systems which are used to
create, maintain, and disseminate the
organisational knowledge base.
Choo (1996) proposes the concept of the
knowing organisation. The knowing
organisation holistically manages its sense-
making, knowledge building, and decision-
making processes. This model emphasises the
importance of using knowledge creation in
the wider context of the other arenas of
information use within an organisation, such
as sense making and decision making.
Other perspectives on the organisational
processes associated with knowledge, come
11
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 4 . Number 1 . 2000 . 715
from the literature of knowledge
management. Davenport et al. (1998), for
example identify knowledge management to
have four strands:
. The creation of knowledge repositories.
. The improvement of knowledge access.
. The enhancement of the knowledge
environment.
. The management of knowledge as an asset.
Rowley (1999) defines knowledge
management thus:
Knowledge management is concerned with the
exploitation and development of the knowledge
assets of an organisation with a view to
furthering the organisation's objectives. The
knowledge to be managed includes both explicit,
documented knowledge, and tacit, subjective
knowledge. Management entails all of those
processes associated with the identification,
sharing and creation of knowledge. This requires
systems for the creation and maintenance of
knowledge repositories, and to cultivate and
facilitate the sharing of knowledge and
organisational learning. Organisations that
succeed in knowledge management are likely to
view knowledge as an asset and to develop
organisational norms and values, which support
the creation, and sharing of knowledge.
Models of knowledge management which
emphasise the social construction of
knowledge share common ground with work
on learning organisations and organisational
learning. Demerest's (1997) model is one
example of such a model. He identifies four
phases of knowledge management within an
organisation: knowledge construction,
knowledge dissemination, knowledge use and
knowledge embodiment. The model
emphasises the construction of knowledge
within an organisation, with both scientific
and social contributions to this construction
process. According to the model, constructed
knowledge is then embodied within an
organisation, both through explicit programs,
but also through social interchange.
Following embodiment there is a process of
dissemination of the espoused knowledge
throughout the organisation and its
environments. Ultimately the knowledge is
seen as being of economic use in regard to
organisational outputs. There is also a
recognition that the process moves back and
forth between the different phases. The model
is similar to that proposed by Jordan and
Jones (1997), who identify the phases of
knowledge acquisition, problem solving,
dissemination, ownership and storage.
 From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur
Jennifer Rowley
Thinking about knowledge
Indiscriminate knowledge creation will not
lead to organisational learning. Knowledge
creation processes need to be managed, in
such a way that the knowledge that is created,
disseminated, used and embodied is the
knowledge which will contribute to
organisational effectiveness, and ensure that
the organisation can change and adapt, or in
other words, demonstrates by its actions,
decisions and behaviour that it has learnt.
There is a range of characteristics of
knowledge that must be acknowledged in this
process. These include:
Objectivity
The debate associated with the objectivity of
knowledge is relevant to all types of
knowledge and all disciplines. All knowledge
is a product of the society and cultural
environment in which it is created. However,
the issue of objectivity has been most hotly
debated in the social sciences (e.g. Morgan,
1983). Social science researchers and
knowledge users have been acutely aware of
the difficulties associated with creating a
shared reality, which could be regarded as
valid and transferable objective knowledge.
Science and technology, on the other hand,
often investigates problems and environments
where experiments can be repeated under
similar conditions to give consistent results
and what can be identified as objective
knowledge. Related to the issue of objectivity
are those of reliability and accuracy. Accuracy
means that data or information is correct.
Reliability implies that the information is a
true indicator of the variable that it is
intended to measure. Users often judge
reliability of information on the basis of the
reputation of the source from which it has
been drawn.
Accessibility
Accessibility is concerned with the availability
of knowledge to potential users. The distinction
between implicit or tacit knowledge and explicit
knowledge is relevant here. Tacit knowledge is
subjective knowledge, which is owned by the
individual or team. Most explicit knowledge is
stored in the printed and electronic archives of
societies (libraries) and organizations, and is, in
general likely to be more accessible than tacit
knowledge. However, the storage and
communication media and the form and style
12
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 4 . Number 1 . 2000 . 715
of communication are also important.
Knowledge may be stored and communicated
via people, print or electronic media. A real
challenge for most individuals and
organizations is the integration of information
that is presented in different formats. Also the
form and style of communication needs to be
amenable. The user's subject knowledge,
environmental context, language used and
preferences all influence the success with which
a message is received.
Relevance
Knowledge available to an individual must be
appropriate to the task in hand. Knowledge
available to an organization must be relevant,
or pertinent, to its current direction, vision and
activities. Knowledge is relevant when it meets
the users' requirements, and can contribute to
the completion of the task in which the user is
engaged, whether that task is decision making,
problem solving, or learning. Relevance can be
assessed in relation to many of the other
characteristics listed in this section, such as
currency, and accuracy, but may specifically be
judged in terms of level of detail and
completeness. Completeness is normally
judged in relation to a specific task or decision;
all of the material information that is necessary
to complete a specific task must be available. In
addition the level of detail, or granularity of the
information must match that required by the
task and the user.
Currency
Currency and life span of knowledge are
important for two reasons some information
may supercede other information; the most
current information is required, and outdated
information needs to be discarded. Each type
of information has its own life cycle. At one
end of the time scale there is a core of
relatively stable knowledge for each discipline,
such as the way in which the heart functions,
or the process for the refining of steel. Other
information is outdated within hours.
Examples include the weather report and
international exchange rates. The real
challenge is being able to recognize the
positioning on a time scale of specific
knowledge and to be able to manage that
knowledge in accordance with it's life cycle.
Users need to be presented with information
that is still current, and collections of
knowledge need to be weeded of redundant
and out-dated material.
 From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur
Jennifer Rowley
Structure and organization
All knowledge has a structure. At the
individual cognitive level, the brain holds
associations between specific concepts.
Structure is important to understanding. This
cognitive structure is reflected in the way in
which individuals' structure information in
their communications in the form of verbal
utterances, text and graphical representations.
Some disciplines have inherent structures;
biology, for example, is organized in
accordance with a structure that reflects the
structure of living matter, and documents on
biology can be organized in a way that is
consistent with this structure. Newspapers,
similarly group information into categories
such as news, politics and sport. The two
important features of this structure are:
(1) the way in which items are grouped into
categories, and
(2) the relationships between these categories.
Systems
Structure is often imposed by systems, whether
those systems are conceptual frameworks,
communication systems, or information
systems. Knowledge will be communicated
through information systems and stored in
information systems. Such systems embrace
people and hardware and software. These
systems need to be designed in order to achieve
effective and efficient information retrieval.
Such systems include document management
systems, filing systems, databases, Web
browsers and search engines.
One special category of knowledge is
management knowledge. Clegg and Palmer
(1996) introduce a collection of papers that
explore the relationship between management
knowledge and power in organisations.
Management theory, as a body of knowledge is
that they assert a ``political discourse'' (Clegg
and Palmer, p. 3). Management knowledge
determines and shapes the complex
relationships between individuals and the
organisation, and it is those relationships that
frame the everyday intrigues, disclosures and
dramas of working life. Further, management
knowledge legitimises some practices, such, as
those associated with equal opportunities,
whilst it marginalises others. In an attempt to
study the way that power and knowledge
intermingle, they conceptualise management as
``recipes of knowledge''. These different recipes
of knowledge determine how rationality is
bounded, how behaviour is ordered and how
13
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 4 . Number 1 . 2000 . 715
individuals are controlled and creative. Thus
management knowledge from different
countries, perspectives and contexts must
differ; knowledge is socially situated,
constructed and changed. Clegg and Palmer
acknowledge the need for management
knowledge to evolve to accommodate the
increasingly diverse organisations that are likely
to emerge in the twenty first century.
In summary, knowledge is not something
that can be viewed as a neutral tool in the
learning process. Learning is of little value
unless appropriate skills and knowledge are
acquired throughout the learning process.
One of these skills will be the ability to learn
and to translate that learning into action, and
the capacity for learning will influence the
organisation's ability to change and adapt.
Nevertheless, survival in the short term is
significantly dependent on the knowledge and
skills acquired during the learning process,
and without short-term survival, there will be
no long-term future. An organisation's ability
to learn is intimately interwoven with the
effectiveness with which it manages its
knowledge base.
Towards the knowledge entrepreneur
The literature of learning organisations has
tended to focus on the learning process; many
of the recipes offered by authors in this field
are concerned with the social interactions and
cultural precedents which encourage the
learning process within teams and between
teams in organisations. Rather less attention is
paid to the outcome of the learning process.
Whilst one of those outcomes will be the
ability to continue to learn, the other is the set
of skills and knowledge that are created within
the organisation, and are accessible to those
who might be in a position to use them in
contributing towards the vision of the
organisation. More recently contributions to
the debate have considered the knowing, and
knowledge creating, organisation, and the
field of knowledge management has
encouraged the development of perspectives
on how knowledge can be created and
managed. Although the knowledge
management literature recognises issues such
as knowledge environments and cultures, the
emphasis has been on knowledge
management tools, and specific knowledge
management projects (e.g. Davenport et al.,
 From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur
Jennifer Rowley
1998). Embedding a knowledge management
philosophy which affects the way in which
multinational global organisations work, is
challenging because it is necessary to
understand and manage the relationship
between knowledge and the social context
which shapes that knowledge. This involves
consideration of the characteristics of
knowledge that were outlined in the previous
section. The assessment of any knowledge or
document with respect to each and every one
of these criteria requires human judgement.
Computer-based systems may at times be
able to embed or simulate that judgement,
but fundamentally, these criteria are not
absolute criteria. They depend on the nature
of the organisation, its marketplace and
environment, and what it is seeking to
achieve. Further the outcome of the
application of these criteria will change with
time, as the organisation changes.
We propose the concept of the knowledge
entrepreneur. An organisation that is a
knowledge entrepreneur recognises the mulit-
faceted nature of knowledge, and the
implication that this has for organisation
learning. Specifically, it understands how to
interface organisational learning and systems
evolution in such a way as to optimise and
capitalise on its knowledge resources in
pursuit of its vision.
The organisation that strives for the status
of knowledge entrepreneur, need to reach
beyond ``knowledge management'', and build
bridges between people and systems. This is
easy to say, but very hard to achieve. People
are idiosyncratic; a wise organisation will wish
to capture this diversity and harness it, rather
than impose uniformity. Similarly, many of
the knowledge systems in organisations are
influenced by their developers, or earlier
generations of the organisation, hardware and
software. Neither people or systems come
without a history, which has shaped what they
are and can achieve. Both have a future, and
in that future they will develop and change.
The key competence for the knowledge
entrepreneur is the ability to learn how to
manage systems evolution and organisational
learning in tandem. This will not be achieved
in the absence of a culture which supports
individual and organisational learning and the
articulation of tacit knowledge. Nor will it be
achieved without appropriate systems to
store, and disseminate explicit knowledge, in
such a way that that knowledge is current,
14
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 4 . Number 1 . 2000 . 715
relevant, and focussed. Both are necessary
prerequisites to the continual knowledge
creation and access that leads to continuing
and sustainable competitive advantage.
References
Argyris, C. (1990), Overcoming Organisational Differences:
Facilitating Organisational Learning, Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Argyris and Schon, D. (1978), Organisational Learning,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Burgoyne, J. (1988), ``Managerial development for the
individual and for the organisation'', Personnel
Management, June, pp. 40-4.
Choo, C.W. (1996), ``The knowing organisation: how
organisations use information to construct meaning,
create knowledge and make decision'', International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 329-40.
Clegg, S.R. and Palmer, G. (Eds) (1996), The Politics of
Management Knowledge, Sage, London.
Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (1997), Organisational
Development and Change, 6th ed., Southwestern
College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Davenport, T.H., DeLong, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998),
``Successful knowledge management projects'', Sloan
Management Review, Winter, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
Demerest, M. (1997), ``Understanding knowledge
management'', Journal of Long Range Planning,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 374-84.
Fiol, C. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), ``Organisational learning'',
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 803-13.
Garrett, B. (1987), The Learning Organisation and the
Need for Directors Who Think, Gower, Aldershot.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), ``Building a learning organisation'',
Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 78-91.
Honey, P. (1991), ``The Learning organisation simplified'',
Training and Development, July, pp. 30-3.
Jordan, J. and Jones, P. (1997), ``Assessing your company's
knowledge management style'', Journal of Long
Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 392-8.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), ``The factory a learning
laboratory'', Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 23-7.
Lessem, R. (1991), Total Quality Learning: Building a
Learning Organisation, Blackwell, Oxford.
Morgan, G. (Ed.) (1983), Beyond Method: Strategies for
Social Research, Sage, London.
Moss-Jones, J. (1992), The Learning Organisation,
Institute of Management, Corby.
Nonaka, I. (1988), ``Towards middle-up-down
management: accelerating information creation'',
Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 9-18.
Nonaka, I. (1991), ``The knowledge creating company'',
Harvard Business Review, November-December,
pp. 96-104.
Pearn, M., Roderick, C. and Mulrooney, C. (1995),
Learning Organisations in Practice, McGraw-Hill,
London
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T. and Welshman, G.
(Eds) (1990), Self Development in Organisations,
McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
 From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur Journal of Knowledge Management
Jennifer Rowley Volume 4 . Number 1 . 2000 . 715

Rowley, J.E. (1998), ``What is information?'', to be

published in Information Services and Use.
Rowley, J.E. (1999), Knowledge Management: Philosophy
or Discipline?, in press.
Schein, E.H. (1993), ``How can organization learn faster?
The challenge of entering the green room'', Sloan
Management Review, Winter, pp. 85-92.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and
Practice of the Learning Organization, Century,
London.
Senge, P.M. and Sterman, J.D. (1992), ``Systems thinking
and organisational learning'', European Journal of
Operational Research, p. 59.
Stahl, T., Nyham, B. and D'Aloja, P. (1992), The Learning
Organization: A Vision for Human Resource
Development. Eurotecnet Technical Assistance
Office, Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels.
Starkey, K. (Ed) (1996), How Organisations Learn,
International Thompson, London.
Stata, R. (1989), ``Organisational learning: the key to
management innovation'', Sloan Management
Review, Spring, pp. 63-74.
Thurbin, P.J. (1994), Implementing the Learning
Organisation: The 17-day Programme, FT/Pitman,
London.

Further reading
Arbnor, I. and Bjerke, B. (1997), Methodology for Creating
Business Knowledge, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park,
CA.
Cassel, C. and Simon, G. (1994), Qualitative Methods in
Organisational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage,
London.
Crockett, F. (1992), ``Revitalising executive information
systems'', Sloan management Review, Summer,
pp. 29-47.
Koniger, P. and Janowitz, K. (1995), ``Drowning in
information but thirsting for knowledge'',
International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 5-16.
Ross, K. (1992), ``The learning company'', Training and
Development, July, pp. 19-22.
Rowley, J.E. (1992), Organising Knowledge, Gower,
Aldershot.
Saint-Onge (1993), Towards Implementation. Valuing the
Learning Organization: A Symposium to Investigate
the Concepts, Language and Metrics for Measuring
Human Capital in the Knowledge Era, Ernst Young,
London.

15