DSS M2C2

DSS M2C2 Word Count: 5,078 (without the

references)

Module question 3
Compare and contrast knowledge management and the
learning

1. Introduction

For a modern organisation operating in a highly competitive business

world, the ability to learn faster than its competitors and to constantly
change its business practices offers a lasting competitive advantage
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). An organisation might decline and die when
it stays behind in regard to the new business practices and the needs of
the contemporary business environment (Wiig, 1993). The individuals and
organisations that adjust themselves faster to the notion of self-learning
and then apply it at work are rewarded with corporate prosperity and
growth.

It sounds impossible for any healthy organisation to refuse to learn.

Learning is what makes people and organisations exist and evolve
throughout the time. According to Tsang (1997), the concept Learning
Organisation (LO) refers to organisations that turn their emphasis on
Organisational Learning (OL). The main difference between LO and OL is
that LO treats an organisation as an entity, while OL focuses on an
organisation’s learning process, which is the specific activities employees
follow to acquire knowledge (Loermans, 2002; Yeo, 2005).

Both concepts of LO and OL are concerned with the appropriate learning

processes that further understanding of how organisations can acquire
information (Kezar, 2005). Is it, though, enough for organisations to
develop knowledge and to sustain learning without setting up the
practices to manage what they can do with the accumulated learning
outcomes? Organisations can evolve and enrich their views in a rapid
changing business environment when knowledge can be managed
(Scarborough and Swan, 2001).

The term knowledge management (KM) has been introduced by a wide

range of academic scholars and human resources practitioners to include
activities such as generating, classifying, and identifying the appropriate
tools that provide the employees the opportunity to share and to use
knowledge for personal and organisational development (Wiig, 1993). In
addition, Scarborough and Swan (2001) argue that the effectiveness of KM
is highly defined by its relation to information technology (IT). The latter
authors agree that KM and IT are two inextricably linked concepts in the
field of the human resources development (HRD).

The question that this paper addresses is which of LO and KM offers the
most utility to the HRD practitioner and why. Before this paper reaches
any conclusions, it is essential to provide a thorough comparison between
LO and KM in order to identify the chief differences and similarities of the
aforementioned concepts. This comparison will be made in such a way to
provide evidence that LO and KM needs the one the other (Loermans,

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 1
DSS M2C2

2002), as Aggestam (2006: 295) vividly illustrates with the question in her
article’s title “LO or KM – Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

The current literature in the disciplines of LO and KM expresses an long

lasting and in some sense superficial academic debate arguing which of
the two is more applicable and useful to the HRD practitioner. Why should
we draw lines and borders as to what provides more solutions from
others? Aggestam (2006) argues that an organisation which aims to
develop through its learning processes must pay attention to both terms
simultaneously, which requires the deeper understanding of their
divergent and convergent views.

The present paper reviews the relevant literature of KM and LO to

compare and contrast the two core disciplines in the field of HRD. Through
the review of secondary research and the author’s personal critique, this
paper concludes that the synergy between LO and KM can offer valuable
resources to the HRD practitioner in regard to how and what makes people
share and generate knowledge.

The paper is organized in the following way: Section 2 discusses the

differences between the terms Leaning and Knowledge. Section 3 provides
a non-exhaustive review of the literature of the relevant to this paper
terms. Section 4 identifies the chief difference and similarities of LO and
KM. The paper closes with Section 5 which critically discusses the author’s
main arguments.

2. Learning vs. Knowledge

The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines learning as follows:

“1 : the act or experience of one that learns;
2 : knowledge or skill acquired by instruction or study;
3 : modification of a behavioral tendency by experience (as
exposure to conditioning)”.

Interestingly, the same online dictionary defines knowledge as:

“(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or
understanding of a science, art, or technique (3) : the fact or
condition of being aware of something (4) : the range of one's
information or understanding <answered to the best of my
knowledge> (5) : the fact or condition of having information or of
being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>”.

Although most people use both terms interchangeably, literature reveals

certain differences between learning and knowledge. Even from the two
aforementioned definitions, it seems that learning is acquired through
instruction or study, whereas knowledge is a deeper cognitive process
which requires personal experience, observation and self evaluation. Of
course, definitions are always open to individual interpretations.

Scholars in the discipline of social sciences agree that humans working in

organisations are engaged into a learning process (LO) which concludes to
knowledge (Loermans, 2002; Scarborough and Swan, 2001). Interestingly

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 2
DSS M2C2

enough, this strengthens the paper’s argument that LO and KM cannot

survive without the other since LO seems to care more on the process
while KM emphasizes on the resources of a well designed and executed
learning process.

It is not this paper’s intention to choose sides in the academic debate of

what is better; LO or KM. Both concepts of knowledge and learning
contribute to a person’s development. As it is mentioned above,
knowledge is the outcome of a “single loop learning” process (Argyris and
Schön, 1978) which is merely the information presented to the learner
through a book or a lecture. This kind of learning is absorbed into the
learner’s mind after reading the textbook’s notes and becomes a valuable
resource.

Learning, on the other side, is a “double loop learning” process (Argyris

and Schön, 1978) which involves the learner’s ability to question the
information, identify his/her mistakes and eventually apply his/her own
generated knowledge. The double loop learning stretches the importance
of the learning as a process without emphasizing on the result, making it
less sufficient. Hence, the ideal process of learning is what the latter
authors call the third-loop process which requires from the employees not
only to challenge the status quo and the existing knowledge, but rather to
generate new learning and information for the rest.

An example of such an organisation that widely seeks from its employees

to generate ideas is Google Inc which aims to offer a joyful working
environment in which the employees will not feel restrained (Wakefield,
2008). The process of learning offers a deeper understanding and
emphasises on the perception to interpret, to question, and to apply
organisational learning accordingly. In other words, the learning as a
process and the knowledge as a result correlate in what Argyris and Schön
(1978) call the third-loop process.

The present paper aims to contribute to the discussion in regard to the

concepts of KM and LO. Through a non-exhaustive review of the relevant
literature and the author’s personal analysis, this paper argues that the
combination of LO and KM has the potentiality to offer feasible solutions to
the HRD practitioner and under certain circumstances to cultivate
organisational learning. The next chapter examines the social and
conceptual origins of both LO and KM.

3. Defining LO and KM

The Learning Organisation (LO)

“The learning organisation is a place where people continually expand

their capacities to create results they truly desire, where new and
expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is
set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.”
(Senge, 1990:
3)

According to the definition above, individuals who feel that they belong to
a community of learners, function and share common goals, and business

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 3
DSS M2C2

practices in order to form an organisation. Senge’s definition also points

out the need of people not only to belong to a certain organisation but to
form an organisational culture in which issues can be caused by outsiders
and need to be solved within their culture. This can be achieved through
better learning and understanding of the current business.

Is it, however, a bless for an employee to be part of large community of

learners? There are two opposing views in regard to the LO. The one side
argues that learning functions as a unity factor between the
administration and the employees (Driver, 2002). This same side states
that employees in a LO create a stronger bonding with the organisation,
minimizing the possibility of leaving the business since they feel they own
their personal enrichment to the organisation. The opposing side
questions the true existence of LO since it seems unrealistic or at least
hard to achieve. In fact, an organisation’s persistence to LO practices can
lead to conflicts (Driver, 2002).

Argyris and Schön (1978) state that the process of OL is characterized by

the people’s tendency to detect errors and then correct them (reactive
approach). First we hurt and then we heal. According to the latter authors,
organisations become more aware of mistakes and flaunts through
personal observations of what works for employees and what does not
work. OL is then achieved when errors are corrected or at least minimized
and consequently when employees reconceptualise the facts and generate
new mental processes at work. This is not something that occurs
individually, but rather collectively. Employees exchange pre-existing
knowledge through personal experience in order to reshape their
organisational maps (Argyris and Schön, 1978) that is to create a
homogenous organisational culture.

Individual and organisational learning (OL) share certain characteristics in

relation to human needs (Argyris and Schön, 1978). Primarily, both types
of learning require a variety of mechanisms to convert information to
applied knowledge. Secondly, a productive OL is most of the times
characterized by a designated organisational culture which is shared and
acknowledged among the group members. This sense of culture starts
from a person’s intrinsic need to learn making individual and
organisational learning inextricably linked. Finally, individual and
organisational learning are both characterized by the group’s sense of
professionalism to minimise errors at work, and to commit themselves to
learning (Popper and Lipshitz, 2000).

Senge (1990) argues that organisations develop learning concepts and

tactics in order to enhance their systemic character. These systemic
processes function within organisations in order to maintain control over
the information flow. Senge (1990) explains that although employees
might engage into specific learning processes, they face difficulties
understanding the organisation’s overall goal. Using a simile, through
organisational learning, employees can see the tree but not the forest,
whether it is a pleasant or an horrible picture. When employees face
difficulties to understand the whole picture, OL can lead to internal
conflicts and dissatisfaction among employees. Change resistance,
feelings of stress and the sense of insecurity are factors, which employees
might express their resistance to learning (Lahteenmaki, et. al, 2001).

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 4
DSS M2C2

Current literature examines occasions in which employees feel they are

forced to participate in a learning process that does not express their
needs. Lahteenmaki, et. al (2001) argue that employees are preoccupied
in a sense that administrations use OL as an excuse to organisational
change that will justify and legitimate a possible downsizing. In fact, when
the administration’s leadership skills are not sufficient and employees do
not share a common vision, learning is seen as irrelevant to the actual
work and therefore useless.

The employee’s personal ambitions to succeed, their commitment to the

organisational culture, the dynamics of power relations, and the informal
networks (level of friendship and intimacy) among colleagues can either
affect positively or negatively the level of acceptance towards OL
(Lahteenmaki, et. al 2001). In many cases, employees have the right to
neglect techniques adopted by organisations claiming their interest to
cultivate learning. Especially when literature has shown that top
executives and HRD practitioners might misread the results of LO
activities and reach to unpleasant conclusions such as that employees
have no new ideas, or they have lost their interest to work which in some
cases lead to job losses (Driver, 2002; Wang and Ahmed, 2003).

To sum up, the LO concept has the potentiality to further OL while it can
also generate conflicts and misunderstandings among employees. When a
learning practice is not set up correctly, and the administration fails to
manage the generated knowledge, employees have hard time to
comprehend the need to learn. This is when the concept of KM is being
introduced.

Knowledge Management (KM)

Literature shows that a decline of references in regard to the LO resulted

to the rise of references to KM during the period 1990 – 1998 (Scarbrough
and Swan, 2001). What made scholars shift their research focus from LO
to KM? The relationship between the two core concepts in learning is
complimentary and simultaneously contradictory. Both concepts value
knowledge and learning as important factors towards organisational
development.

Succeeding the industrial era, the information age is defined by the

emphasis on the service sector and consequently on human assets. Just to
acquire relevant information and then apply it, is simply not enough
anymore. Now, organisations aim to “know what they know” (Davenport
and Prusak, 1998:17) meaning that the deeper understanding of
knowledge is what makes a strong organisational competitive advantage.
The rise of education and specialisation in any organisational sector,
brought people to treat information as an easily accessible commodity
that the majority can pursue.

Therefore, information systems do not offer any competitive advantage to

organisations, since anybody can have access to technology and work as
fast as anybody else. But is any employee’s work equally efficient?
Contemporary organisations seek for ways to move from the information
age to the era of knowledge. What is more important now is the know-how
of knowledgeable employees (Scarbrough and Swan, 2001). Hence, there

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 5
DSS M2C2

was a shift from the efficient worker to the intelligent one who applies
and synthesizes knowledge.

KM is being identified when employees are apply existing knowledge and

are willing to distribute what they already know for the overall
organisational benefit (Kezar, 2005). As Loemans (2002) argues, in order
to achieve OL, KM is required since it offers a valuable tool to document
and apply knowledge. The paper’s main argument becomes clearer now,
that the LO explores the learning process which takes place within an
organisation, while the KM takes advantage of a certain learning process
to generate knowledge.

Davenport and Prusak (1998) nicely describe the shift to a more

operational-based knowledge using the examples of well known software
companies that shifted from offering simple manufacturing goods to
intellectual solutions.

“…Xerox calls itself ‘the document company’, not ‘the copier/printer

company’. It sells solutions to business problems, not just office
machinery. Ford focuses on ‘quality’. IBM markets ‘industry-solution units’.
3Mcalls itself a knowledge company...”
(Davenport and Prusak 1998:
14)

The latter authors comment on the latest trend of organisations’ self-

definitions as not simply a marketing decision, but a true effort to
embrace knowledge as a significant value within the business.

Employees delineate the concept of KM as a contemporary and more

appealing label of already known terms such as training, total quality
management (TQC), the learning organisation (LO), life-long learning, and
so on (Scarbrough and Swan, 2001). But are the aforementioned terms
similar to KM? Based on relevant literature, this paper argues that KM is
rooted by the combination of significant concepts. It has been discussed
so far that people who work in organisations need to combine tacit
knowledge with work experience. KM requires a sense of innovation from
the individuals who are willing to suggest new best practices for a better
operational management. Consequently, these best ways to operate
contemporary businesses arise from modern societal and market trends
and needs.

Bassi, et.al (1998) describe a benchmarking study by the American

Productivity and Quality Center in 1996 in regard to the emerge of KM in
contemporary management. The authors discuss several reasons for KM’s
rise. First, administrations needed to document all the possible conflicts
that might arise through their employees’ contact with their customers.
Second, the use of KM practices encourages dedicated employees to share
their ideas and ways to cultivate their working practices. This also resulted
for administrations to collect best practices, both internally and externally.
In addition, KM is used by multinational corporations to develop a
homogenous working process that people around the world would function
similarly regardless their cultural differences. Finally, according to Bassi,
et.al (1998) when KM is being applied to the sense of collaboration was
cultivated among the members of the observed organisations. From the
aforementioned study, KM seems to have a both a bright and a dark side.

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 6
DSS M2C2

KM aims to systematically create, store, and share knowledge which is

enriched by the overall working environment. Relevant literature,
however, describes both the advantages and the pitfalls that characterize
KM. Is knowledge a concept to explore or to exploit? Skyrme and Amidon
(1997) define KM by expressing its explicit and systematic nature of
management in order to manage knowledge while the same argue that
such KM processes can also exploit the employees’ knowledge capacities.
Similarly, scholars of KM argue that there is a sense of exploitation of
knowledge within organisations (Scarbrough and Swan, 2001; Kakabadse,
et.al, 2003) since KM can also function as a tool to provide better
administration control over dissatisfied or disengaged to the culture
employees.

It is hard for anyone to claim that certain systems and techniques have
the ability to control personal knowledge and make it publicly accessible
and usable. Even the expression “manage knowledge” implies domination
and control over a vague concept that is primarily owned by the
individuals. Employees view the rules and norms in organisations as the
formal information that everybody has to know. Hence, anything else in
regard to their personal experience they gained through work is
considered tacit knowledge which is non-measurable and therefore not
shared.

In the view of losing their personal expertise which employees have coped
to gain, individuals become skeptic and resistant to KM. Moreover, when
administrations apply KM practices that are technology based, a great
level of employees who are not computer literates might misunderstand
and feel threatened by such efforts (Ardichvili, et.al, 2006). To those
employees who are resistant to KM, the common perception is that it is at
least unfair to share something that they have gained with great effort.

Instead of managing knowledge to generate constructive feedback, the

KM practices cultivate concerns among employees who feel that their jobs
are at stake. De Long and Seeman (2000) explain such behaviors by
arguing that organisational resistance to KM practices is initiated from
stratified hierarchical structures which reinforce competition among
employees and classifies them into competent and incompetent. When
organisations use the results of KM practices in order to evaluate
performance and minimize the possibilities of errors, employees have any
right to view certain KM tools with suspicion.

When employees trust their organisation, research has shown that KM

succeeds its purpose (Elligsen, 2003). Any effort to apply KM practices in
order to punish people for their mistakes or lack of knowledge have the
potentiality to result to employee dissatisfaction and lack of trust to the
organisational culture. For these core reasons, this paper argues that
although KM seems to offer more options to the HRD practitioner, the
application of KM practices requires a justification of the learning process
that LO literature argues.

4. Differences and Similarities of LO and KM

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 7
DSS M2C2

So far this paper has argued that LO and KM are interdependent. Only
when the two concepts are combined, the HRD practitioner can identify a
valuable tool to manage the resources (KM) of the learning process (LO).
By examining the chief differences between the two concepts, the level of
their interdependence becomes more obvious. The main difference is on
each concept’s focus. The LO focuses on how to develop knowledge
through a systematic learning process [acquire knowledge]. In contrast,
the KM focuses on how organisations can manage the result of this
systematic learning process to make it usable by all members within an
organisation [share knowledge].

The LO views the organisation as an entity that is being highly

characterized by an existing organisational culture (Senge, 1990). KM, on
the other side, assumes a pre-existing learning process (LO) in order to
manage its resources. While the LO is more aware of the external factors
that surround the organisation (e.g. competitors and customers), the
concept of KM focuses on internal factors (employees, administration) to
manage their own knowledge. This is why Aggestam (2006) considers
culture as a constraining factor for KM.

According to Aggestam (2006), both LO and KM rely on leadership, but in

different terms. Leadership in LO is of high importance since it provides
the frame in which learning occurs. A LO needs the vision of a leader who
will encourage others participate more actively in the learning process. In
contrast, KM does not necessarily rely on leadership rather than on
management, when it meets and acts within the norms of the
organisation.

Both LO and KM focus on work processes. Literature has shown that both
concepts stress the importance of integrating learning into an
organisation’s every day practices (Aggestam, 2006). Both concepts also
recognize the role of learning in the overall organisational development.
As it has already been mentioned in this paper, OL is a process to achieve
knowledge that KM aims to use and share among the members of any LO.

Another difference between LO and KM is what Aggestam (2006) calls

organisational memory. Literature of LO does not seem to acknowledge
the importance of organisational memory. Rather, it places more
emphasis on the process of OL that can be achieved regardless the use of
IT which in some cases it is taken for granted. In contrast, KM is more
technical oriented while it aims to document and store organisational
memory in order to share it through the use of IT tools. For KM the use of
IT is important since it seems to be the most applicable way to document,
store, and share knowledge. The general notion of KM in regard to the IT
as being the most important aspect to manage knowledge contradicts with
the people-centeredness of HRD that a LO illustrates. However, the KM
practices offer a more tangible solution as to how knowledge can be
shared within a LO.

The comparison of both LO and KM ultimately underlines the close

relationship between them. When LO questions why people need to learn
(reflecting level), KM is concerned on what to do with the gained
knowledge (diagnostic level) (Van Gigch, 1991). Any attempt that can be
identified in literature that aims to draw a line between the two concepts,

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 8
DSS M2C2

fails to acknowledge that both LO and KM focus on knowledge and how to

use it. By examining the similarities and differences of LO and KM, one can
realize that both terms are linked and only together they have the ability
to offer the most utility to the HRD practitioner.

5. Offering the most utility to the HRD practitioner

Recent literature argues that KM as a more contemporary concept is more

realistic and applicable to the business world (Elligsen, 2003). However,
Chua and Lam (2005) have modeled the reasons for unsuccessful
implementations of KM practices and classified them in four failure factors.
The first factor refers to the managers’ over-reliance in technology that
runs the danger of ignoring individual differences and tacit knowledge.
Managers who over-rely on KM technology-based solutions, falsely expect
that once employees get involved in an open discussion through certain
web applications, knowledge is being shared. Past research studies have
shown that technology alone is not enough to generate valid knowledge
(Newell, et.al, 2001; Storey and Barnett, 2000). Technical problems such
as lack of connectivity, unequal computer literacy, and insufficient
bandwidth define an uneven workplace environment in regard to KM
practices in which a certain amount of employees feels incompetent and
therefore isolated.

The second factor of KM failure refers to culture (Chua and Lam, 2005).
Examples of cases that KM practices were unsuccessfully applied by HRD
practitioners include the issues of politics and power relations among the
organisations’ human assets and organisational behavior. In many cases,
the use of KM practices might lead to misinterpretations in regard to who
is committed to the organisation, who fits to the overall organisational
culture, or who from the employees is insufficient to follow a certain way
of thought.

The third failure factor refers to content. Usually employees who

participate in KM practices find those practices as completely
unnecessary, meaningless, or hard to understand (Skok, 2003). When the
applied KM tools do not further or enrich the existing organisational
knowledge, their possible success is doomed.

Finally, as Chua and Lam (2005) argue, a failure factor for the application
of KM is the problematic project management. When employees who
participate in KM initiatives are asked to relocate or resign during an on
process KM implementation, the administration sends vague messages
that can be misinterpreted by employees. It is negatively commented
when employees are asked to postpone their everyday business tasks in
order to participate in KM practices. These employees feel that their
important business tasks are left behind while they are forced to spend
their working time in explaining how they work to others. Finally, many
organisations miss to actually evaluate the results of KM practices or to
measure any personal or organisational achievement. This ultimately
leads to misinterpretations as to the functions and usability of similar
practices.

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 9
DSS M2C2

Since knowledge is not just happening or simply existing within

organisations, people need to get the appropriate motives to seek for it.
Employees who realize the importance of acquiring knowledge, become
true believers of organisational learning activities (Easterby-Smith, 1997).
As the concept of KM aims to convert knowledge gained through
experience and informal channels of communication (tacit knowledge) into
documented and codified systems of practice, Scarbrough et. al (1999)
distinct the significant differences between supply side and demand side
applications of KM.

Supply side initiatives usually involve technological components in order

to cultivate the channels in which employees will share their knowledge on
certain aspects. On the contrary, demand side initiatives tend to be more
people-centered as they focus on people’s attitudes and motivations to
create a more open working environment to exchange thoughts
(Scarbrough et al, 1999). Such KM initiatives as teambuilding activities
and corporate games, require more effort from the administration (LO)
and time from the employees to strengthen relationships and establish
rapport. However, once employees attain this level of trust, knowledge
sharing comes naturally and efficiently.

Literature related to studies that applied and analyzed KM practices

mainly argues that it takes much more than a good technological tool for
the HRD practitioner to position the appropriate conditions to generate
knowledge. Skok’s (2003) research on New York City Cab drivers, for
instance, shows that through a demand side initiative that involved
various sets of interviews, the research’s subjects revealed that their
insecurities and uncertainties to exchange information with others block
any effort to effective KM. Similarly, van Zolingen et al (2001) suggest that
employees communicate their expertise easily and freely when they work
in smaller groups and when the blend of senior and junior employees is
satisfactory. However, a critique to van Zolingen’s et al (2001) study is
that when the HRD practitioner assigns certain groups within any
organisation, he/she runs the danger of creating cliques among employees
who will not wish to collaborate with anybody outside their “tribe”.

Cynically or not, in order for the HRD practitioner to apply KM practices,

he/she primarily needs to consider the rewards employees will gain to
share their knowledge. In our contemporary society that praises
individuality, sharing knowledge without any type of reward sounds
unrealistic. For instance, the use of BlackBoard application as a tool to
increase continuous learning even outside the classroom, is not being
appreciated by students when they get no rewards for its use. As a course
instructor in a university, I have observed that students do not take the
full advantage of the tool to exchange thoughts with others. Rather, they
prefer to solve their concerns by asking me directly through emails and
office hours. One would easily claim that undergraduate students are not
so involved to knowledge as postgraduate students. This is not always
true. Even in a more advanced learning environment such as the
Blackboard application that we use for the current doctorate programme
under the University of Leicester supervision, we can easily realize that
there are only few cases when more than five people participated in
discussions that aimed to share and ultimately generate knowledge.

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 10
DSS M2C2

The relationship between LO and KM can be illustrated as an endless loop.

Learning is highly supported by a LO which in turn requires KM to
effectively distribute knowledge. This new knowledge will support more
learning and so on. Ultimately, this loop that Argyris and Schön (1978) call
triple-loop process fully answers as to how LO and KM relate and further
OL. It is clear that LO requires KM and KM assumes the existence of LO to
function properly (Aggestam, 2006).

If we see a LO as an overall system that aims to OL, it definitely includes

KM as its subsystem to promote and manage knowledge. To view it
otherwise, any change in KM can affect the organisation while
simultaneously any organisational change in the culture or people can
affect KM. It happens quite often that when organisations are in constant
change (e.g relocations, lay-offs, etc.) knowledge cannot be managed
easily.

In conclusion, it is rather unrealistic for anyone to claim that the full use of
KM tools will further organisational knowledge. Where the LO required a
strong administration commitment in which power relations take place to
convince and motivate employees to learn new concepts, KM appeared
more practical with the introduction of technology. However, this paper
showed through various cases on the literature that technology-based or
even web-based KM tools, such as the BlackBoard, require much more
than good faith. Knowledge is being pursued by individuals with great
effort. In our contemporary times of uncertainty and competitiveness,
people hesitate to openly give their knowledge away. It seems, however,
that the combination of the use of technology-based KM practices from
one side with a softer LO approach that emphasizes on culture
management, communities of practice, and emotional awareness
initiatives might offer the most reliable and valid answer to the HRD
practitioner.

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 11
DSS M2C2

References

Aggestam, L. (2006) Learning organisation or knowledge management – which

came first, the chicken or the egg? Information Technology and Control, Vol. 35,3,
pp. 295-302.

Ardichvili, A., M. Maurer, W. Li, , T. Wentling, and R. Stuedemann (2006) Cultural

influences on knowledge sharing through online communties of practice. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 94 ‐ 107.

Argyris, C. and D. Schön (1978) Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action

Perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Bassie, L, Cheney, S., & Lewis, E (1998) Trends in Workplace Learning: Supply and
Demand in Interesting Times, Training and Development, 52(11), p51-54,56-
60,62-64,66-75.

Carmona, S. and G. Perez-Casanova (1993) “Organisational forgetting and

information systems” Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol.9, No1. pp. 29-44.

Chua, A., Wing, Lam.: ‘Why KM projects fail: a multi-case analysis’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9, 3 (2005), 6-17.

Davenport, T. and L. Prusak (1998) “What do we talk about when we talk about
knowledge?” in Chapter 1 of Working knowledge How Organisations manage what
they know, Boston: Harvard Business School Press: pp.1-24.

De Long, D. and P. Seeman (2000) ‘Confronting Conceptual Confusion and Conflict

in Knowledge Management’, Organisational Dynamics, Vol 29, No. 1, pp. 33-44.

Driver, M. (2002) ‘The learning Organisation: Foucauldian gloom or Utopian

sunshine?’, Human Relations, Vol.55, No1, pp. 33-53.

Drucker, P. (1995) ‘The information executives truly need’, Harvard Business

Review, January – February, pp. 54-62.

Easterby-Smith, M. (1997) ‘Disciplines of organisational learning: contributions

and critiques’, Human Relations, 50 (9): 1085-1113.

Elligsen,G. (2003) ‘The Role of Trust in Knowledge Management: A Case Study of

Physicians at Work at the University Hospital of Northern Norway’ Informing
Science, Vol.6 retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol6/v6p193-207.pdf [21-
12-09]

Kakabadse, N., A. Kakabadse and A. Kouzmin (2003) ‘Reviewing the knowledge

management literature: towards a taxonomy’, Journal of Knowledge Management,
7 (4): 75-91.

Kezar, A. (2005) What Campuses Need to Know About Organisational Learning

and the Learning Organisation. New Directions for Higher Education, No. 131, pp.
7-22.

Lahteenmaki, S., J. Toivonen and M. Mattila (2001) ‘Critical aspects of

organisational learning research and proposals for its measurement’, British
Journal of Management, 12: 113-129.

Loermans, J. (2002) Synergizing the Learning Organisation, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 285-294.

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 12
DSS M2C2

Liebowitz, J (1999) ‘Building Organisational Intelligence: A Knowledge

Management Primer’. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton; London; New York; Washington,
D.C.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (The) (2009) ‘Definition of Knowledge’ retrieved

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge [03-12-09]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (The) (2009) ‘Definition of Learning’ retrieved

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learning [03-12-09]

Newell, S., H.Scarbrough, J. Swan (2001) ‘From global knowledge management to

internal electronic fences: contradictory outcomes of intranet development’,
British Journal of Management, 12: 97-111.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge –Creating Company. Oxford

University Press.

Popper, M. and R. Lipshitz (2000) ‘Organisational learning: mechanisms, culture,

and feasibility’, Management Learning, 31 (2): 181-196.

Prahalad, C.K., and G. Hamel (1994) "Strategy as Field of Study: Why Search for a
New Paradigm?" Strategic Management Journal.

Senge, P. (1990) “The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning
Organisation”, Currency Doubleday, New York, NY.

Scarbrough, H. and L. Swan (2001) ‘Explaining the diffusion of knowledge

management: the role of fashion’, British Journal of Management, Vol.12, pp.3-12.

Skok, W. (2003) ‘Knowledge Management: New York City Cab Case Study’
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol 10, No2.

Skyrme D.J. and D.M. Amidon (1997) ‘Business Intelligence: Creating the
Knowledge-based Business’, retrieved from
http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/book/t_davenport_1.html?
CFID=71774336&CFTOKEN=39223392 [21-12-09]

Storey, J. and E. Barnett (2000) ‘Knowledge management initiatives: learning from

failure’ Journal of Knowledge Management, 4 (2): 145-156.

Tsang, E.W.K. (1997) Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation: A

Dichotomy Between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research. Human Relations,
Vol.50, No.1, pp. 73-89.

Van Gigch, J.P. (1991) System Design Modeling and Meta-modeling. Plenum Press,
New York.

Van Zolingen, S., J. Ingelgard, J. Roth (2001) ‘Gendering knowledge: the practice
of knowledge management in the pharmaceutical industry’, Knowledge and
Process Management, 8 (2): 65-74.

Wakefield, J. (2008) ‘Google your way to a wacky office’ retrieved from BBC’s
official website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7290322.stm [22-12-09].

Wang, C. L. and P.K. Ahmed (2003) ‘Knowledge management: the challenges for
human resource management’, Journal of Quality Science, 1(1):17-26.

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 13
DSS M2C2

Wiig, K.M. (1993) Knowledge Management Foundations – Thinking About Thinking –

How People and Organisations Create, Represent, and use Knowledge. Schema
Press LTD.

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 14