CHAPTER - 2

LITERATURE REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND

COLLABORATIVE KNOWLEDGE SHARING

2.1 Organizational Learning:

Learning is individually driven and once individuals have learned some skills

the next question is how the organization will incorporate procedures and

assets. In other words, individual learning needs to be transformed into

organizational learning. Organizational learning takes place when the

organization concerned addresses particular problem or cluster of problems

confronting the organization. Then, the problems are solved keeping in the

mind the lessons learnt and assimilating competences that represent the

collective learning of present, past and future employees. Organizational

learning is described as the way the organizations build, supplement and

organize knowledge and routines around their business activities and

business cultures, as well as the way they adopt and develop organizational

efficiency by improving the use of broad skills of their workforces.1

Organizational learning theories provide rich perspectives on the process that

generate and change organizational knowledge. Learning provides the skills,

insights, and competence to perform well at work. It enables people to adopt

and grow in their work place becoming better problem solvers, more creative

and innovative thinkers, more confident and proficient workers.

Researchers have proposed a variety of definitions of organizational learning.

Organizations are seen as learning systems through a number of processes

that create new knowledge or modify existing knowledge of which mainly they

have attracted attention .2

The first process is encoding-organization learn by encoding influences from

experiences in organizational routines that guide behaviour. The second

process is exploration which captures ―search variation, risk taking,

29

experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery and innovation‖. The third process

is exploitation which captures ―refinement, choice, production efficiency,

selection, implement action and execution.3Organizational learning can be

considered as systematic behaviour to acquire capacities for dealing with the

needs and challenges of organizations in competitive environments.

A MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONS AS LEARNING SYSTEMS:

The two-part model4 describes organizations as learning systems (see figure

2.1). First, learning orientations are the values and practices that reflect where

learning takes place and the nature of what is learned. These orientations

form a pattern that defines a given organization‘s ―learning style‖. In this

sense, they are descriptive factors that help us to understand without making

value judgments. Second, facilitating factors are the structures and

processes that affect how easy or hard it is for learning to occur and the

amount of effective learning that takes place. These are standards based on

best practice in dealing with generic issues.

Both parts of the model are required to understand an organization as a

learning system; one without the other provides an incomplete picture. In

addition, separating the parts enables organizations to see that they do

indeed function as learning systems of some kind, and that their task is to

understand better what they do well or poorly. Finally, a refined detailed list of

factors related to organizational learning may help the organizations to select

areas for learning improvement that they do not demand drastic change but,

rather, can lead to incremental change over time.

Descriptive Normative (What and where (What promotes learning occurs) learning) Learning Learning Facilitating Orientations Style Factors

= Organizational Learning Systems

Based on : Based on: Culture Best Practices, Experience, Common Processes Core Competence

Figure 2.1 A model of Organizations as Learning Systems

30

2.2 Learning Orientations

Here, we expand on the definitions of the seven learning orientations and

provide examples of each.

1. Knowledge Source. To what extent does the organization develop new

knowledge internally or seek inspiration in external ideas? This distinction is

seen as the difference between innovation and adaptation – or imitation. In

the United States, there is a tendency to value innovativeness more highly

and look down on ―copiers‖. American critiques of Japanese businesses often

mention that the Japanese are good imitators but not good innovators. Both of

these approaches have great merit as opposing styles rather than as

normative or negative behaviours.

2. Product-Process Focus. Does the organization prefer to accumulate

knowledge about the product and service outcomes or about the basic

processes underlying various products? Many observers have stated that one

reason Japanese companies are so competitive is that they make

considerably more investments in process technologies in comparison to US

companies. The difference is between interest in ―getting product out the

door‖ and curiosity about the steps in the processes. All organizations give

some attention to each side; the issue is to organize for learning in both

domains.

3. Documentation Mode. Do attitudes vary as to what constitutes knowledge

and where knowledge resides? At one pole, knowledge is seen in personal

terms, as something an individual possesses by virtue of education or

experience. This kind of knowledge is lost when a long time employee leaves

an organization; processes and insights evaporate because they were not

shared or made a part of collective memory. At the other pole, knowledge is

defined in more objective, social terms, as being a consensually supported

result of information processing. This attitude emphasizes organizational

memory or a publicly documented body of knowledge.

31

4. Dissemination Mode. Has the organization established an atmosphere in

which learning evolves or in which a more structured, controlled approach

induces learning? In the more structured approach, the company decides that

valuable insights or methods should be shared and used by others across the

organization. It uses written communication and formal educational methods

or certifies learning through writing the procedures down. In the more informal

approach, learning is spread through encounters between role models and

gate-keepers who compellingly reinforce learning. In another approach,

learning occurs when members of an occupational group or work team share

their experiences in ongoing dialogue.5

5. Learning Focus. Is learning concentrated on methods and tools to improve

what is already being done or on testing the assumptions underlying what is

being done? Argyris and Schon call the former "single-loop learning‖ and the

latter "double-loop learning."6

They have rightfully argued that organizational performance problems are

more likely due to a lack of awareness and inability to articulate and check

underlying assumptions than to a function of poor efficiency. In our opinion,

these learning capabilities reinforce each other. Organizations may have a

preference for one mode over the other, but a sound learning system can

benefit from good work in both areas.

6. Value-Chain Focus. Which core competencies and learning investments

does the organization value and support? By learning investments, we mean

all allocations of personnel and money to develop knowledge and skill over

rime, including training and education, pilot projects, developmental

assignments, available resources, and so on. If a particular organization is

"engineering focused" or "marketing driven," it is biased in favour of

substantial learning investments in those areas. We divided the value chain

into two categories: internally directed activities of a "design and make"

nature, and those more externally focused of a ―sell and deliver‖ nature. The

former include R&D, engineering, and manufacturing. The latter are sales,

32

distribution, and service activities. Although this does some disservice to the

value chain concept, the breakdown easily accounts for our observations.

7. Skill Development Focus. Does the organization develop both individual

and group skills? We believe it helps to view this as a stylistic choice, as

opposed to seeing it in normative terms. In this way, an organization can

assess how it is doing and improve either one. It can also develop better ways

of integrating individual learning programs with team needs by taking a harder

look at the value of group development.

We can view the seven learning orientations as a matrix. An organizational

unit can be described by the pattern of its orientations in the matrix, which in

turn provides a way to identify its learning style. Given the characteristics of

the sites we studied and other sites we are familiar with, we believe it is

possible to identify learning styles that represent a distinct pattern of

orientations. Such styles may reflect the industry, size, or age of an

organization, or the nature of its technology.

Facilitating Factors

The second part of the model is the facilitating factors that expedite learning.

The ten factors are defined as follows:

1. Scanning Imperative. Does the organization understand or comprehend

the environment in which it functions? In recent years, researchers have

emphasized the importance of environmental scanning and agreed that many

organizations were in trouble because of limited or poor scanning efforts.

Thus, there is need for the academic institutes to increase their scanning

capacity.

2. Performance Gap. First, how do managers, familiar with looking at the

differences between targeted outcomes and actual performance, analyze vari-

ances? When feedback shows a gap, particularly if it implies failure, their

analysis often leads to experimenting and developing new insights and skills.

One reason that well-established, long-successful organizations are often not

33

good learning systems is that they experience lengthy periods in which

feedback is almost entirely positive; the lack of disconfirming evidence is a

barrier to learning.

Secondly, is there a potential new vision that is not simply a quantitative

extension of the old or goes well beyond the performance level seen as

achievable in the old vision? One or more firm members may visualize

something not previously noted. Awareness of a performance gap is important

because it often leads the organization to recognize that learning needs to

occur or that something already known may not be working. Even if a group

cannot articulate exactly what that need might be, its awareness of ignorance

can motivate learning.

3. Concern for Measurement. Does the organization develop and use

metrics that support learning? Are measures internally or externally focused,

specific, and custom-built or standard measures? The importance of metrics

in total quality programs has been well documented and is used in target-

setting programs such as management by objectives.7 Our interest is in how

the discourse about measurements, and the search for the most appropriate

ones, is a critical aspect of learning, almost as much as learning that evolves

from responding to the feedback that metrics provide.

4. Experimental Mind-set. Does the organization emphasize experimentation

on an ongoing basis? If learning comes through experience, it follows that the

more one can plan guided experiences, the more one will learn. Until

managers see organizing for production at any stage of the value chain as a

learning experiment as well as production activity, learning will come slowly.

Managers need to learn to act like applied research scientists at the same

time they deliver goods and services.8

We have seen evidence of experimental mind-sets in reports about other

firms. For example, on any given day, Wal-Mart conducts about 250 tests in

its stores, concentrated on sales promotion, display, and customer service.

Although a traditional firm in many ways, 3M's attitude toward new product

34

development and operational unit size suggests a strong experimental mind-

set.

5. Climate of Openness. Are the boundaries around information flow per-

meable so people can make their own observations? Much informal learning

is a function of daily, often unplanned interactions among people. In addition,

the opportunity to meet with other groups and see higher levels of

management in operation promotes learning.9 People need freedom to

express their views through legitimate disagreement and debate. Another

critical aspect is the extent to which errors are shared and not hidden.10

6. Continuous Education. Is there a commitment to lifelong education at all

levels of the organization? This includes formal programs but goes well

beyond that to more pervasive support of any kind of developmental

experience. The mere presence of traditional training and development

activities is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by a palpable sense that

one is never finished learning and practicing (something akin to the Samurai

tradition). The extent, to which this commitment permeates the entire

organization, and not just the training and development groups, is another

indicator. In many ways, this factor is another way of expressing what Senge

calls "personal mastery."

7. Operational Variety. Is there more than one way to accomplish work

goals? An organization that supports variation in strategy policy process,

structure, and personnel is more adaptable when unforeseen problems arise.

It provides more options and, perhaps even more important, allows for

rich stimulation and interpretation for all its members. This factor helps

enhance future learning in a way not possible with a singular approach.

8. Multiple Advocates. Along with involved leadership, is there more than

one "champion" who sets the stage for learning? This is particularly necessary

in learning that is related to changing a basic value or a long-cherished

method. The greater the number of advocates who promote a new idea, the

more rapidly and extensively the learning will take place. Moreover, in an

35

effective system, any member should be able to act as an awareness-

enhancing agent or an advocate for new competence development. In this

way, both top-down and bottom-up initiatives are possible.

9. Involved Leadership. Is leadership at every organizational level engaged

in hands-on implementation of the vision? This includes eliminating

management layers, being visible in the bowels of the organization, and being

an active, early participant in any learning effort. Only through direct

involvement that reflects coordination, vision, and integration can leaders

obtain important data and provide powerful role models

10. Systems Perspective. Do the key actors think broadly about the

interdependency of organizational variables? This involves the degree to

which managers can look at their internal systems as a source of their

difficulties, as opposed to blaming external factors. Research in the field of

systems dynamics has demonstrated how managers elicit unintended

consequences by taking action in one area without seeing its dynamic

relationship to its effects. Jay W. Forrester is considered to be the founder of

the field of systems thinking.

GENERAL DIRECTIONS FOR ENHANCING LEARNING

The seven learning orientations and ten facilitating factors are divided into

three stages—knowledge acquisition, dissemination, and utilization. Figure

2.2 shows the orientations and factors within this framework. Within the two-

part model, there are two general directions for enhancing learning in an

organizational unit. One is to embrace the existing style and improve its effec-

tiveness. This strategy develops a fundamental part of the culture to its fullest

extent. For example, a firm that is a reflective imitator more than an innovator

could adopt this strategy with heightened awareness of its value. A company

that has benefited from heavy learning investments on the "make" side of the

value chain would see the value of those investments and decide to build

further on them. This approach builds on the notion that full acceptance of

what has been accomplished is validating and energizing for those involved. It

is similar to the appreciative inquiry numerous organizational change

36

consultants advocate.11 The task is to select two or three facilitating factors to

improve on.

The second direction is to change learning orientations. The organizational

group would make more learning investments at a different part of the value

chain; try to be an innovator if it is now more of an imitator, and so on. These

are different changes from those involved in enhancing the facilitative factors,

and the tactics will be different. Some changes will be seen as an attack on

the organization's basic values, and it may be possible to avoid this by moving

towards balance between the two poles, so members of the organization will

support the existing style and advocate the "new look" as a supplementary

measure.

37

2.3 Learning Resources of Organizational Learning and knowledge

sharing:

This section contains summaries of the views of acknowledged experts from

the field of management. Each of the works described here emphasizes, from

its own distinctive standpoint, the key contribution that collaborative efforts of

staff towards organization development make to long-term sustainable

viability, effectiveness and profitability.

G. HOFSTEDE

Cultures and Consequences (Sage, 1980)

Hofstede‘s work emphasizes the importance of cultural factors and

differences in all areas and aspects of organizational behaviour and

development. It indicates both the strength and interaction of cultural

pressures. It indicates the source and nature of particular values, drives,

barriers and blockages; and the behavioural issues and problems that have to

be considered. It illustrates the relative strengths of some of the main cultural

and social pressures that are brought to bear on all organizations in all

situations, and emphasizes the need for the development of collective

attitudes, values and standards of behaviour as a key element of learning

organizations.

Contribution:

Hofstede carried out studies that identified cultural similarities and differences

among the 116,000 staff of IBM located in 40 countries. He identified basic

dimensions of national culture and the differences in their emphases and

importance in various countries. The four dimensions were as set out below.

Power-distance – the extent to which power and influence is distributed

across the society; the extent to which this is acceptable to the

members of the society; access to sources of power and influence; and

the physical and psychological distance that exists between people and

the sources of power and influence.

38

Uncertainty-avoidance – the extent to which people prefer order and

certainty, or uncertainty and ambiguity; and the extent to which they

feel comfortable or threatened by the presence or absence of each.

Individualism-collectivism - the extent to which individuals are

expected, or expect, to take care of themselves; the extent to which a

common good is perceived and a tendency and willingness to work

towards this.

Masculinity-femininity - the distinction between masculine values (the

acquisition of money, wealth, fortune, success, status, ambition and

possessions) and the feminine (sensitivity, care, concern, attention to

the needs of others, quality of life); and the value, importance, mix and

prevalence of each.

Power-distance

The study looked at the extent to which managers and supervisors were

encouraged or expected to exercise power and to take it upon themselves to

provide order and discipline. For example, in Spain this expectation was very

high. Relationships between superior and subordinates were based on low

levels of mutual trust, participation and involvement. Employees would accept

orders and direction on the understanding that the superior carries full

responsibility, authority and accountability. Elsewhere, for example in

Australia and Holland, people expected to be consulted and to participate in

decision-making. They expected to be kept regularly and fully informed of

progress, and had much greater need for general equality and honesty of

approach. They would feel free to question superiors about why particular

courses of action were necessary, rather than simply accepting that they

were.

Uncertainty-avoidance

People with a high propensity for uncertainty-avoidance (those that wished for

high degrees of certainty) tended to require much greater volumes of rules,

regulations and guidance for all aspects of work. They sought stability and

39

conformity. They were intolerant of dissenters. Uncertainty caused stress,

strain, conflicts and disputes. Stress could be avoided by working hard,

following the company line and compliance with required ways of behaviour.

Where uncertainty-avoidance was lower, these forms of stress were less

apparent. There was less attention paid to rules; and less emphasis placed on

conformity and adherence.

Individualism-collectivism

The concern here was to establish the relative position of individual

achievement in terms of that of the organization, as well as in the wider

contribution to society and the community. In the UK and USA, overwhelming

emphasis was placed on individual performance and achievement. This has

implications for membership and development of teams and groups, and the

creation of effective collective operations in these locations. It also indicates

the extent and likelihood of divergence of purpose between the organization

and individuals. Where collectivism was higher, there was a much greater

emphasis on harmony, loyalty, support and productive interaction. There was

also a much greater priority given to organizational, as distinct from individual,

performance.

Masculinity-femininity

This considered the value placed on different achievements. Cultures with

high degrees of masculinity set great store by the achievement of material

possessions, trappings and rewards. Those with high degrees of femininity

saw success in terms of quality of life, general state of the community,

individual and collective well-being and the capability to support the whole

society and provide security.

P. DRUCKER

Management Challenges for the 21st Century (HarperCollins, 2000)

The approach taken here is to stand much of conventional wisdom in terms of

organization and management on its head. Peter Drucker addresses each of

the elements of: strategy, change, information, productivity, and the

acceptance of responsibility, in terms that require shifts away from structured

40

organizations and towards the harnessing of expertise in the pursuit of long-

term and sustainable viability.

Contribution:

The overarching approach concentrates on "the one right way" to organize

and manage. However, the "one right way" is to design, develop and create

organizations that fit the task, rather than to fit activities into existing

organization formats and hierarchies.

The major task of managing is leadership. The view is taken that the manager

acts as the equivalent of the conductor of an orchestra. The primary role is

therefore to lead, harmonize and integrate all of the diverse activities so that

the whole is created by those who actually know what they are doing. This

responsibility also includes creating conditions in which this works and is

effective, rather than trying to regiment experts into prescribed formalized

activities. Drucker takes the view that, because those in professional,

technical and other occupations are so highly trained, they clearly are much

better able to decide how tasks should actually be carried out than those for

whom they work. A fundamental shift of attitude is therefore required of

managers in accepting and acknowledging this, and in developing their own

expertise to make this effective.

Drucker takes the attitude that "one cannot manage change, one can only be

ahead of it." The task of the organization is therefore to lead change and to

develop policies that ensure that the future is secured by anticipating and

introducing change, and balancing this with continuity. Organizations require

collective attitude of receptiveness to change, and the willingness and ability

to change what is already being done as a prerequisite. The key to this is

creating and developing policies for innovation based on identifying windows

of opportunity.

The relationship between innovation and risk is identified. Any innovation

carries with it the possibility of failure, or of leading the organization away from

41

present and comfortable activities. Attitudes that accept and embrace these

elements are required.

Innovation must not be confused with novelty. The test of innovations is that

they create value; while novelties create only diversion. A distinction must be

drawn between whether the organization and those in responsible positions

like something; and whether stakeholders want what is proposed, and

whether they are prepared to pay for it. Above all, organizations should never

confuse action with effectiveness. The fact that people are busy does not

make them effective; the fact that organizations are busy with change policies

and processes does not mean that they will be successful in the future.

KEY QUOTE

"We never had time to do any thing properly. Consequently, we always had to

find time to do it twice."

Suetonius, G., The Twelve Caesars (Penguin Classics, 1994; originally written

in 120 AD)

The requirement is therefore to develop focus, concentration and direction, as

well as positive and willing attitudes.

The development of organizations is based on the access to, and availability

of, quality of information, both universally and within the organization. This is

referred to as the shift from the technology emphasis, to the information

emphasis, in IT. The view is advanced that knowledge worker production, and

the application of expertise, is the key to long-term security for organizations

and staff. Those with expertise are effectively "capital assets." The costs of

labour turnover, rehiring and retraining all add to workforce costs. A

fundamental shift is required away from the perception that the management

of people at work is based on the premise that "one worker is very much like

any other." Because expertise is within, it is totally portable and can be

applied anywhere. Management's duty, therefore, is to preserve these

particular assets and to develop them.

42

The final element is the need to manage oneself. This requires acceptance of

social and ethical responsibilities, as well as individual commitment to job,

occupation, profession or expertise.

The broad view is that all organization managerial, professional and

occupational activities of an organization depend on social acceptance for

economic returns. All activities are conducted ultimately for the good of the

society and must be acceptable at this level if economic prosperity is to follow.

A fundamental shift of attitude is therefore made clear.

R. HELLER

In Search of European Excellence (HarperCollins Business. 1998)

Heller identifies a strategic approach to learning organizations as follows.

Devolving leadership without losing control or direction.

Driving radical change in the entire corporate system, as well as in its

component parts.

Reshaping and developing culture, attitudes, values and behaviour and

integrating these with long-term strategy, priority and direction.

Dividing to rule, by which is meant the ability to respond to small

opportunities whatever the size of the organization.

Developing the central direction of the organization so that attitudes,

behaviour and economic realities are integrated.

Maintaining competitive edge as a part of the development of orga-

nizations.

Achieving constant renewal so that successes are part of a process,

rather than causes for congratulation.

43

Enhancing collective and individual motivation, and ensuring that

people motivate themselves.

Concentrating on high quality, high value and integrated teams.

Paying attention to every part of each activity and process so that "total

quality management" is achieved rather than aspired to.

C. ARGYRIS AND D.A. SCHON

Argyris, C. Personality and Organizations (Harper & Row, 1957)

Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A., Organizational Learning (Harper & Row, 1978)

Argyris and Schon identify seven dimensions along which the individual

develops towards psychological maturity, as follows.

Individuals move from passive states as infants to active states as

adults.

Individuals move from a state of dependency as infants to a state of

relative independence as adults.

Individuals have limited behaviour as infants but complex and sophis-

ticated behaviour as adults.

Individuals have short, casual and shallow interests as infants but

deeper and stronger interests as adults.

Infant's time spans and perspectives are very short; their concentration

span is very short; with maturity this widens into conception of past and

future.

Infants are subordinate to others, and become peers, equals or

superiors as adults.

Infants lack self-awareness and self control; adults are self-aware and

capable of self-control.

44

Argyris pursued this line of reasoning to the conclusion that highly structured

and formalized organizations were therefore unsuitable places in which to

work, especially for those who had a highly developed "adult." There is a

fundamental lack of harmony or congruence between the needs of individuals

and the drives and restraints of the organization. This tends to get worse as

organizations become more sophisticated and rules, procedures and

hierarchies grow, and also as individuals seek to progress themselves. This

leads first to restriction, then frustration, and finally to conflict. Frustration and

the potential for conflict are greatest at the lower levels of organizations where

the ability to work independently is most restricted. The overall relationship is

therefore fundamentally unsound and people are expected to behave in

negative ways.

This caused Argyris (1957) and Argyris and Schon (1978) to consider the

integrated development of organizations and individuals.

Contribution:

Single- and double-loop learning

Single-loop learning is identified as "the ability to know what to do in a

particular set of circumstances, or as a response to specific triggers and

stimuli." Individuals learn how they can do better, improving what they are

currently doing. This may also be seen as learning at operational levels, or at

the level of rules.

Double-loop learning is concerned with "why" in relation to what is being

carried out. Lines of reasoning are added to the "what" approaches of single-

loop learning so that, learning new qualities and attributes, as well as the

"mental model" of reasoning, justification, evaluation and analysis is adjusted

and developed also.

For double-loop learning to be effective, collective and corporate development

is harmonized with individual enhancement. Attention is paid to fundamental

principles, strategy and policies, organizational priorities and hierarchies,

45

ranks and reporting relationships because, as individual and collective

capability advances, so do the institutions and structures of the organizations

need to progress also.

Argyris's ideas have become increasingly popular. This is most apparent in

the upsurge of interest in the concept of the learning organization.

Organizational Learning appeared in 1978, but it took Peter Senge's 1990

bestseller, The. Fifth Discipline, to propel the learning organization from an

academic concept to main stream acceptance.

P.M. SENGE

The Fifth Discipline (Century Business. 1998)

Senge identifies the direct relationship between strategic, operational

and productive success, and "the learning organization." The hypothesis is

that organizations can succeed and prosper in long term only if they are

collectively, as well as individually, prepared to "learn

faster than their competitors," and then apply the lessons learnt in

productive, effective and profitable ways. Senge identifies the following

disciplines of the learning organization.

Systems thinking

Business and all human endeavours are systems. They are bound by invisible

fabrics of interrelated actions that often take years to fully play out their effects

on each other. Organizations traditionally tend to focus on events occurring in

isolated parts of the system, rather than concentrating on the effectiveness of

the whole. The ability to "think systematically" is conceptual rather than

operational. It is necessary to develop bodies of knowledge and expertise

around the way in which the whole works as well as each individual part.

Thus, if attention is paid to one individual part, effects - including stresses and

strains - on the rest of the whole will become apparent. In this way,

organizations can learn to resolve problems from the point of view of

reinvigorating the whole, rather than resolving them in the sure and certain

knowledge that they will have knock-on effects leading to other issues.

46

Personal mastery

Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening

personal vision, focussing energy, as well as skills, qualities and expertise.

Again, this reinforces the need for positive attitudes, values and behaviour so

that the context in which expertise is delivered sits comfortably with each

individual who is required to work. Collectively and individually, it is necessary

to clarify priorities and address these as the precursor to establishing the

comfort and compatibility between organizations and those who work within

them, and between organizations and their customers and clients. This form

of comfort also reinforces mutual confidence and loyalty, as well as building a

sound base for the development of expertise.

Mental models

Mental models are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, pictures

and images that influence how people understand the world and how they

take action. These are forms of individual and collective perceptions that limit

thinking and also skew or emphasize it in particular directions. There is a

strong moral and economic element - what is required must serve individual

and collective comfort and well-being, as well as economic demands. "Mental

modelling" also includes the ability to identify and address preconceptions and

prejudices and received wisdom, so that everything that is done is constantly

a matter of scrutiny.

Building shared vision

Alongside the development of strategies, policies and priorities for action,

"shared vision" is required - and this is closely related to culture, attitudes and

values identification, development and transformation. Shared vision

reinforces the need for strong and positive steps of dominant values to which

everybody can aspire and with which they can be comfortable. Within this

comfort is required the capacity for high levels of achievement and intrinsic

recognition and reward, as well as attention again, to the wider social and

moral issues - that the organization is "a good" place to work.

47

Team learning

Senge states

"the discipline of team learning starts with dialogue; the capacity of members

of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into genuine free thinking."

This underlines the value of communication, and the importance of developing

mutual personal and professional respect and esteem, as well as high levels

of performance. Those in different professions and occupations need to know

how, and why, those in others operate and function as they do.

Learning organizations therefore concentrate on each of the foregoing

elements. It requires acceptance that everyone, whatever their occupation,

rank or level of experience is a learner. Attention is paid to each of the above

elements, so that how particular and collective expertise may be applied is as

important as what is required.

Senge proposes a strategic approach to organization and employee

development based on the learning shortcomings of all organizations. The

requirement is to understand that, in particular cases, it will be necessary to

address specific issues; in the vast majority of cases, a collective strategic

approach is required if each of these barriers is to be overcome. The

approach adopted is functional, recognizing the need to develop from present

starting points. The main tenets are as follows.

Recognize the constraints of the present systems, and the sources of

particular problems before trying to make fundamental and radical

shifts.

Recognize the allure - and the illusion - of short-term quick fixes rather

than a strategic approach.

Small changes can produce big results provided that they are fully

integrated.

48

Identify the blockages and see where the key interactions are causing

problems; and recognize that dividing issues does not necessarily

produce results - Heller uses the phrase "dividing an elephant in half

does not produce two small elephants."

Avoid apportioning blame - especially to those outside the organization,

or to circumstances beyond control. This only works if it is fully

integrated, and if there is a full acceptance of long-term enduring

responsibility.

Reg Revans

Action Learning (London: Blond & Briggs, 1974.)

What is the difference between a puzzle and a problem? According to

Revans, there is an existing solution to a puzzle and it simply needs to be

found. There is no existing solution to a problem. The solution has to be

worked out by a process of inquiry that begins at the point where one does

not know what to do next and expertise is no help. Action Learning explains

that process and offers an alternative method of learning to the traditional

one, which is based on programmed knowledge instead of encouraging

students to ask questions and roam widely around a subject.

Action Learning is all about an alternative to traditional education and training.

The method it sets out is a form of "learning by doing," but its proponents are

to distinguish it from simply "learning on the job" or "learning by experience." It

involves a collaborative effort, humility, a "trading of one's confusion with that

of others," and deep reflection on one's experience and on the nature of the

problem. Its outcome is personal growth as much as a way out of a current

difficulty.

Contribution

Action Learning : The concept of "action learning" is based on a simple

equation: L = P + Q. Learning (L) occurs through a combination of

programmed knowledge (P) and the ability to ask insightful questions (Q).

49

It does not deny all usefulness to existing knowledge, but its focus is on

asking questions. Learning must be opened up. Programmed knowledge is

one-dimensional and rigid; the ability to ask questions opens up other

dimensions and is free-flowing.

The first step toward asking constructive questions is to acknowledge one's

own ignorance. Too many people are concealing their ignorance under a

veneer of knowledge. Instead of hiding our ignorance, according to Revans,

we should be bartering it.

The essence of action learning is to become better acquainted with the self

through observing what one actually tries to do, endeavouring to ascertain the

reasons for attempting it, and tracing the consequences that result from it.

Revans said he sought "to focus [his] own doubt by keeping away from

experts with prefabricated answers."

The Importance of Small Team Learning : The structure linking the two

elements in the equation is the small team or set. The central idea of this

approach is collaboration within the set; its members strive to learn with and

from each other as they confess failures and expand on victories.

A Better Way to Develop Managers : Action learning is also the antithesis of

the traditional approach to developing managers. We keep solving the same

problems because we do not learn from them. We bring in consultants to

provide solutions or send managers on courses where they are taught a lot

but learn little. Action learning is about teaching little and learning a lot.

Collaboration Counts : In industry, managers and workers need to

acknowledge the problems they face and then attempt to solve them. When

doctors listen to nurses, patients recover more quickly. If mining engineers

pay more attention to their workers than to their machinery, the pits are more

efficient. It is neither books nor seminars from which managers learn much,

but from here-and-now exchanges about the operational job in hand.

50

According to Revans, "The ultimate power of a successful general staff lies

not in the brilliance of its individual members, but in the cross-fertilization of its

collective abilities."

One of the critical points about action learning is its relation to action. In a way

it appears misnamed. The name at first sight suggests learning in practical

situations or performing tasks rather than studying theory. It tends to conceal

the centrality of reflection, questioning, especially questioning one's own

actions in a deliberate and precise way, ignorance-bartering, and collaborative

effort to the process. The solutions that are eventually arrived at must be

tested in action, but that is very much the final stage.

Nonaka Ikujiro and Hirotaka Takeuchi.

The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create

the Dynamics innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

The book focuses on the development of organizational knowledge in

Japanese companies. The authors explain how this knowledge forms the

basis of innovations that have enabled Japanese companies to become

leaders in many different market sectors. They show that the ability to acquire

and apply knowledge is becoming a key factor for success in the transition

from an industrial economy to an information economy.

Nonaka and Takeuchi believe that historical adversity has forced Japanese

companies to pursue a policy of continuous innovation. Organizational

knowledge, according to them, is the ability of a company to create new

knowledge, disseminate it throughout the organization, and embody it in

innovative products, services, and systems. They distinguish between explicit

knowledge, such as rules or formulas, and tacit knowledge, which is gained

from experience and can rarely be learnt. The Japanese, they claim, are very

effective at turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge that can be shared

throughout an organization.

51

Contribution

Characteristics of Knowledge Creation. According to the authors, there are

three-key characteristics of knowledge creation:

metaphor and analogy

the transition from personal to organizational knowledge

ambiguity and redundancy

The use of metaphor and analogy helps companies to visualize difficult

concepts and explain them to other people within an organization. The

transition from personal to organizational knowledge depends on the

successful implementation of teamwork so that individuals can interact with

each other. The acceptance of ambiguity and redundancy means that

Japanese companies are happy to take a number of different approaches to

innovation, some of which are bound to fail. They use redundancy to

encourage creativity and identify what does not work in practical terms.

Knowledge Management : The authors review theories of knowledge from

ancient times onward. They analyze recent management writing to identify

attitudes towards the question of knowledge. They cite Peter Drucker's

"knowledge worker" and Peter Senge's "learning organization" as important

concepts in knowledge creation. They also discuss the concept of core

competencies and argue that this can distract companies. Core

competencies, they argue, suggest that knowledge is an existing, finite

resource within a company. Knowledge creation, on the other hand,

emphasizes the importance of acquiring and developing knowledge from as

many internal and external sources as possible.

How Knowledge Creation Works. The authors claim that there are four key

processes in knowledge conversion:

socialization

externalization

combination

52

internalization

An example of socialization is the brainstorming camp established by Honda

to solve difficult production problems. Externalization is the process of using

metaphors or analogies to communicate difficult concepts in product

development. Combination is the process of sorting, adding, combining, and

synthesizing different types of knowledge to create new knowledge.

Internalization is like relearning other people's experiences or learning by

doing.

The Environment for Knowledge Creation : To create a suitable

environment for knowledge creation, the authors stress the importance of

vision to guide overall direction and autonomy to allow everyone in the

organization to get involved in the process.

They describe a structure called "middle-up-down management" that

underpins knowledge creation. This structure contrasts with the bottom-up or

top-down management styles found in Western companies. The Japanese

model puts middle managers at the heart of the process, acting between

front-line workers and a visionary senior management team. The authors

believe that this type of structure creates dialogue and builds relationships

between the individual specialists who contribute to a development project.

Hypertext Organizations : Nonaka and Takeuchi refer to the concept of a

"knowledge crew," consisting of knowledge engineers and knowledge

practitioners. Underpinning this is what they call a "hypertext organization."

This is an organization with multiple layers:

a business system layer;

a project team layer;

a knowledge base layer.

53

The business system layer and project team layer generate different types of

knowledge, which are brought together in the knowledge base which can be

shared throughout the organization.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss

The Change Masters. New York : Simon and Schuster (1983)

This book is regarded as an authoritative work on the factors behind

successful corporate change. Kanter's work takes a human relations

perspective, and is one of the earliest books to focus on the importance of

empowerment.

According to the author, "change masters" are adept at anticipating the need

for, and leading, productive change. Companies with a commitment to human

resources were significantly ahead in long-term profitability and financial

growth.

Kanter goes on to suggest that growth problems in American companies are

due to suffocation of the entrepreneurial spirit—innovation is the key to

growth. New skills are required to manage effectively in innovation-stimulating

environments: power skills, the ability to manage employee participation, and

an understanding of how change is managed. Empowerment is critical to

corporate success.

Contribution

The Nature of Change Masters : Change masters are those people and

organizations adept at the art of anticipating the need for, and leading,

productive change. Change resisters are intent on reining in innovation.

The Importance of Managing People : A research program asked 65

human resource directors in large organizations to name companies that were

progressive and forward thinking in their systems and practices, in relation to

people. Forty-seven companies emerged as leaders in the field. They were

then compared to similar companies. The companies with a commitment to

54

human resources were significantly ahead in long-term profitability and

financial growth.

The message is that if you manage your people well, you are probably

managing your business well.

Innovation As the Key to Growth : Kanter places responsibility for company

growth problems on the quiet suffocation of the entrepreneurial spirit in

segmentalist companies. She identifies innovation as the key to future growth.

The way to develop and sustain innovation is to adopt an integrative approach

rather than a segmentalist one.

The Importance of Empowerment : The extent to which individuals are

given the opportunity to use power effectively influences whether a company

stagnates or innovates. In an innovative company, people are at center stage.

L. GRATTON

Living Strategy; Putting People at the Heart of Corporate Purpose

(Financial Times/Prentice Hall, 2000)

"People are our most important asset. We are a knowledge-based company.

All we have is our people‖. These are statements we hear more and more.

Yet, for many people, the reality of life in an organization is that they do not

feel that they are treated as the most important asset, or that their knowledge

is used or understood."

Gratton starts from that perspective, and develops the point further, indicating

that there are fundamental differences, often resulting in conflicts, between

what is required by the organization, and how they propose to implement it.

She identifies four elements.

There are fundamental differences between people as an asset, and

the traditional assets of finance and technology.

55

Understanding these fundamental differences creates the demand for

whole new ways of thinking and working in organizations.

Business strategies, policies and direction can only be realized

through people.

Creating strategic approaches to people necessitates a strong dialogue

across all organizations.

It is essential, therefore, that people are put "at the heart of corporate

purpose." This results in the creation of a "living strategy" - a following and

fulfilling of corporate purpose and direction that is dependent upon individual

and collective capability and willingness, and also on the required, desired

and existing patterns of behaviour among those earning out the work.

Importance of Knowledge Sharing: Case File

KM Practitioner Reports 14

American Productivity and Quality Center(APQC)

The Knowledge Sharing Network of the APQC provides members with online

access to a wide range of business resources on topics ranging from

productivity to quality. The network includes knowledge taxonomy, a portal

platform, a template inventory, content management processes, community

services, and authorization. Lessons learnt from the project exercise include

making a proper business case for KM infrastructure, involving the user in the

requirements phase, having realistic expectations, assigning a full time role to

the project and the importance of harmonizing new KM infrastructure with

organizational culture.

Daimler Chrysler

Web-based KM infrastructure at DaimlerChrysler supports the Engineering

Book of Knowledge (EboK), where knowledge is captured and shared in the

form of lessons learnt, best practices, expertise directories, and discussion

forums across the organization. DaimlerChrysler‘s TechClubs – COPs in

engineering – are built around robust business processes, capacity for

56

knowledge behaviors and sound Web Infrastructure. Specific impact metrics

for the KM system include decrease in time-to-talent, decrease in time-to-

information and increase in motivation. The DaimlerChrysler Corporate

University plays a major role as a coordinator and facilitator of the KM CoP

with subcommittees for IT tools, measurement, culture, and marketing.

Ernst & Young

Ernst & Young is a pioneer in the field of KM and has evolved Web – based

collaboration tools to enhance the relationship between e-business and

knowledge management via EY/KnowledgeWeb (the intranet) and Ernst &

Young Online (the extranet). Competitive advantage comes from the

capability to most effectively integrate the tool with the right people,

processes, and content. Knowledge Managers within the firm‘s global Center

for Business KnowledgeTM (CBK) are responsible for integrating information,

taxonomies, human knowledge, and technology into work practices. Key

success factors include the ability for users to customize KM tools without

developer support, the adoption of standards (e.g., for corporate branding),

and high levels of security and legal protection.

Ford

Ford has always had a knowledge-sharing culture, and formal processes

along with Web-based technology have extended this culture to the

company‘s global operating units. IT support for best practice replication

evolved from early ―dumb terminals‖ and fax transmissions to a portal and

knowledge based engineering. Key lessons include the importance of

documentation, professional usability design, adherence to content templates

and taxonomy, optimization of infrastructure, automated alerting mechanisms

(―nagware‖!) to coordinate knowledge validation processes, and testing first

via pilots.

Innovators Online Network, New Zealand

Small and medium-sized businesses in New Zealand have been successfully

using the Web – based Innovators Online Network (ION) for knowledge

networking on issues like offshore research and marketing campaigns, thus

57

overcoming constraints of distance and inadequate individual resources. The

use of smaller subgroups and periodic face-to-face meetings helped foster

trust, authority roles, and bonds between the practitioners. This case study

also highlights some of the classic challenges in facilitating online COP and

the means of tackling them, such as drawing user attention to fresh content,

tools for easy publishing, secure access to confidential information,

maintaining overall focus, training moderators, evolving rules regarding veto

power and anonymous posting, and strong involvement of the overall project

manager. In sum, electronic forums can indeed be a catalyst for driving

intellectual discussion as well as delivering tangible gains on projects,

provided adequate attention is paid to issues of capacity and culture.

Key Learning

Each of these resources is a major contribution to the development of

academic, operational and consultancy-based expertise. Each takes a

distinctively different attitude and approach. However, the fundamental

conclusion is very similar - in that it is impossible to generate effective

sustainable organizational performance without paying attention to the needs

and wants of people at work, and to creating the conditions in which their

capabilities and willingness can be engaged and developed. There is a clear

consensus that, whether Organizational Development is approached from the

perspective of the understanding of culture, behaviour, learning, or emotional

commitment, investment is required in the human aspects of organizational

life if they are to remain effective into the future. Developing organizational

learning and expertise is one of the most important activities for long-term

performance improvement and flexibility of academic institutions. It is not

enough for individuals to learn. Unless this learning is distributed and

integrated and incorporated into the workplace through collaborative

knowledge sharing, much of the potential value is lost. Therefore collaborative

knowledge sharing enhances organizational learning resulting in Kaizen.

KAIZEN

Kaizen is a Japanese term referring to the constant progress of humanity and

the continuous striving for perfection, and "constant continuous development."

58

It refers to all aspects of organizations - above all, the requirement to develop

culture as a precondition of effective product and service performance.

Kaizen requires continuous:

Staff training and development;

Product and service improvement;

Attention to productivity;

Attention to procedures and administration to make each as simple and

clear as possible; and

Attention to the whole organization, as well as its parts; and continuous

improvement in the integration of the parts into the whole.

The desired result is continued output of high volumes of high-quality

products, often at premium prices. This is supported by adaptation and

innovation, as well as creativity. This is, in turn, is supported by an absolute

commitment to high levels of investment in all aspects of staff development.

as well as business performance and maximizing returns on investment in

technology. High levels of expectations are placed on staff. High degrees of

conformity and internalization are required; and in return for this, high levels of

pay and security of employment are offered.

Related to this is Mu, or complete openness. This constitutes a refusal to be

hidebound by policies, constraints, directions and structures.

Requirements include being receptive to ideas, innovations, opportunities and

potential; and engendering the qualities of vitality, flexibility, responsiveness

and adaptability on a collective, as well as individual, basis.

Purposes and goals are set according to the demands and opportunities of

the global environment, rather than preordained and specialized internal

strategies - indeed, collaborative knowledge sharing strategy consists of

having the staff, capital, technology and capability to respond to demands and

opportunities.

59

2.4 In Depth Interviews & Discussion with Directors of the

management institutes and experts in Knowledge Management.

In the process of collecting information, the directors of management institutes

offering IT education at post graduation level under University Of Pune and

experts in knowledge management were approached through either through

questionnaire or one to one discussion for getting their views on the issues of

collaborative knowledge sharing.

Work Culture

Does your culture lean more towards knowledge sharing or knowledge

hoarding?

Are mistake making and risk taking activities are seen as learning

opportunities?

Do your systems and procedures in practice promote creativity and innovation

or are there any constraints?

Is there any effective process that can be used to capture and share the best

practices in internal methods within the organization?

Do we encourage knowledge to be shared in our organization?

Interaction

Do you participate in online discussion forums?

What percentage of your knowledge assets is already expressed and

accessible?

How is knowledge captured and shared in the organization?

Do you have knowledge management initiative already in place?

Do you plan to make best practices/lessons learnt databases accessible

through the Intranet?

60

Willingness to share Knowledge

Do you share knowledge with people inside the organization (Amongst

Faculty and students)? How?

Do you share knowledge with people outside the organization (Amongst

faculty of other institutes and Industry)? How?

What are the barriers for knowledge sharing?

Do organizations need to learn better to improve performance? How?

Do you agree that the essential ingredient for future success is learning

through collaboration to acquire new knowledge which in-turn enhances

organizational learning?

Recognition

Are people rewarded for contributing towards building the organizational

knowledge?

Are there measures in place for assessing the impact of knowledge

contributions and initiatives?

What would motivate people towards collaborative knowledge sharing?

How can an academic institute encourage a rich collaborative knowledge

sharing culture?

Do you measure /track the new knowledge generation within your

organization?

Information technology

Do you see IT as an enabler to support virtual team work and

communication?

Do you have the needed infrastructure capability to support collaborative

knowledge sharing?

Do you have the information security procedures in place?

61

Which of the following technologies are you using to support knowledge

sharing initiatives in your organization?

Intranet

Internet

Video conferencing

Online discussion forums

Document management tools

Strategy, Approaches and process

Please rate the following ―Knowledge sharing‖ objectives in context of your

strategy?

Facilitation of the ―re-use‖ and consolidation of knowledge about

operations.

Standardization of existing knowledge in the form of procedures/

protocols

Acquisition of new knowledge from external resources through industry

institute interaction and communities of practice.

Generation of new knowledge inside and outside the organization

through faculty development programs.

Transforming individual knowledge into organizational knowledge.

Q. What is currently the strategic emphasis within your academic

organization?

Operational Excellence (focussing on providing a well-balanced learning

environment to students with an optimal combination of cost, quality and

comfort)

Product and Technological Leadership (focussing on continuous improvement

of students and faculty based on organizational learning and ―state-of-the-art‖-

technology.)

Customer Intimacy (focusing on providing ―total‖ solutions for stakeholders)

62

Q. What is Intranet and why to use Intranet for knowledge sharing?

There are many different definitions of ‗Intranet‘. Some of them focus on the

technology, others on purpose and use. Slyke and Belanger (2003) defines it

as: ― A network that utilizes Internet and Web protocols, but is located inside

the organization and is intended for exclusive use of organizational members

is called Intranet. ―Technically, an Intranet is an application based on ‗Internet‘

technology directed to a ―pre-defined‖ group of users. The purpose of

implementation of Intranets in organizations is often to increase information,

dissemination, integration, and to improve the ‗vertical‘ and ‗horizontal‘

communication, and collaboration of the organization. An Intranet supports

Knowledge sharing in three ways (a) providing compression of time and

space among the users. (b) Offering the flexibility to exchange information

and supporting information transfers, and (c) organizational networking

independent of direct contacts between users

Q. Why don’t People Share Knowledge?

Some of the common reasons given by those I met and discussed are:

―Knowledge is Power‖-but how true is this really? It might be the owner-

manager of a small company not wanting to lose trade secrets. It may be a

particular specialist who has been in the organization many years and built up

his or her own unique way of achieving success without perhaps even

understanding the deep tacit knowledge of how they do it.

―not invented here‖ syndrome-this is more common. People have pride in not

having to seek advice from others and wanting to discover new ways for

themselves.

Not realizing how useful particular knowledge is to others –an individual may

have knowledge used in one situation but be unaware that other people at

other times and place might face similar situations. Additionally, knowledge

derived for one need may be helpful in totally different contexts; or it may be a

trigger for innovation-many innovative developments come from making

63

knowledge connections across different disciplines and organizational

boundaries.

Lack of trust-If I share some of my knowledge, will you use it out of context,

mis-apply it (and then blame me!),or pass it off as your own without giving any

acknowledgement or recognition to me as the source?

Lack of Time – It is the major reason given in many organizations. There is

pressure to you for the next task. How can you possibly find time to add your

lessons learnt to the knowledge database or have knowledge sharing session

with your colleagues?

Other barriers cited by experts include functional silos, individualism, poor

means knowledge capture, inadequate technology, internal competition and

top-down decision making.

Q. Can the Culture of an organization change?

Culture change is easy and but takes time. But cultures can be changed. To

change people‘s action we have to address the most fundamental underlying

layers. This can be done as an organization-wide programme or in small

groups or even individually. The activities that might be used to plan and

induce change are:

A culture audit-conducting questionnaires, interviews and team sessions with

cross- section of the organization. This is especially helpful in finding out the

difference between what is articulated as the desired culture and what is

done.

Challenge ‗improper behaviour- if we identify people hoarding knowledge

unnecessarily, challenge them.

64

Involvement- some of the best knowledge sharing cultures are where

everybody (novices and newcomers) believes that their knowledge is

respected, valued and used to inform decisions.

Use of role models- identify those people whose behaviours are an example

to others. Celebrate and publicize them. Involve them with other groups.

Team-building/organization development sessions – at regular meetings,

allocate time to understand and improve internal processes.

Align rewards and recognition to support appropriate behaviours.

Change people – move the knowledge sharers around; get industrial

psychologists and behavioural experts on board. It is the quality of leadership

that will enable all other culture change techniques to achieve their aims.

Q. How to encourage individuals to provide assistance to others

within the organization?

Measure assistance to others as part of the individual‘s goal

setting/annual review process; and

Provide rewards (bonuses, recognition, incentives, etc.) for

demonstrated assistance to others.

Q. What are the barriers for implementing collaborative knowledge

sharing culture in academic institutions?

The following are the barriers in implementing collaborative knowledge

sharing culture in academic institutions:

Lack of senior management support.

Poor internal communication.

No preparation for collaborative knowledge culture or incorporation of

knowledge processes.

Lack of rewards and recognition. Employees need encouragement.

Lack of planning and establishment of proper schedule.

65

The discussion points lead to the identification of performance indicators and

strategy for collaborative knowledge sharing.

2.5 Performance Indicators of collaborative knowledge sharing

culture in academic institutions:

There are various indicators which assess the collaborative knowledge

sharing culture like work culture, employee motivation, information

technology, recognition, high trust, support from top management, group

dynamics, Interaction, job satisfaction and willingness to share knowledge in

an academic institution. The researcher has selected the following five key

performance indicators on the basis of pilot survey results and expert

opinions.

Work Culture

Interaction

Willingness to share knowledge

Recognition

Information Technology (IT)

2.5.1: Work Culture

In order for collaborative knowledge sharing strategy to be successful in an

academic institute, a continuous learning culture needs to be built.

Continuous learning culture has several elements:

Opportunity for learning: The extent to which the faculty are highly motivated

to learn and have the opportunity for sharing.

Flexibility: The extent to which academic institution is flexible , open to new

ideas and promotes creativity.

Best Practices: Extent to which the best practices in internal methods are

reviewed and shared throughout the organization.

Knowledge sharing culture: fostering Kind of environment where people

share knowledge openly, there is willingness to teach and mentor others,

66

where ideas can be freely challenged and knowledge gained from other

sources can be used.

There are four key reasons why culture is seen as being at the base of how

well knowledge is shared.12

Culture shapes people‘s assumptions about what knowledge is

important

Culture determines the relationship between levels of knowledge, i.e.,

what knowledge belongs to the organization and what to an individual.

Culture creates a context for social interaction about knowledge, e.g.,

what is sensitive, how much interaction or collaboration is desirable,

which actions and behaviours are rewarded and punished.

Culture shapes the creation and adoption of new knowledge.

2.5.2: Interaction

In any organization, anyone who needs some knowledge is always in close

proximity to a person who possesses the knowledge. So, Interaction is a very

important aspect of knowledge sharing. If people do not have opportunities to

meet each other and work with each other, face to face or online then it is

negatively related to productivity and competitiveness. The interaction can be

facilitated through the following ways in an academic environment.

Online discussion forums

Interaction of faculty at intra institute level (Group of institutes under the same

management)

Interactive Knowledge management Intranet site

Knowledge sharing amongst the internal faculty should take place through

regular interactions by means of review meetings and workshops.

2.5.3: Willingness to share knowledge

The successful implementation of collaborative knowledge sharing culture in

an academic institution is highly dependent on faculty‘s willingness to share

knowledge.

67

The following perceptions motivate the faculty to share knowledge:

Knowledge sharing can be seen as strength

Knowledge sharing improves the interpersonal relationships amongst

the faculty.

Inter institute competition does not create a barrier for knowledge

sharing.

Collaborative knowledge sharing enhances learning.

2.5.4: Recognition

A key issue in knowledge sharing is the reward and recognition system within

the academic institution.

Symbolic Reward system:

Rewards can cover many bases from economic to the symbolic. Symbolic

reward system, recognition by means of rewards is commonly used to

motivate knowledge sharing. The academic institution can symbolically

recognize through newsletter or website those who support and put their

efforts towards collaborative knowledge sharing. Further team work can also

be recognized and promoted.

Economic Reward System

For the Economic Reward System, knowledge sharing is monitored and

recorded positively in performance appraisal of the faculty. Feedback

Mechanism is also considered as a mechanism to evaluate the performance.

2.5.5 Information Technology:

There are tremendous difficulties in capturing the knowledge accurately and

then representing it in an understandable form. IT facilitates collaborative

knowledge sharing through various tools in academic institutions.

IT Security and Firewall Protection Procedures

Effective cataloguing and archiving procedures for document

management.

Communication Tools

68

2.6 Collaborative knowledge sharing strategy:

In terms of the process of establishing, building and developing collaboration

the following aspects are required.

Management and development of tasks and activities: setting and developing

work methods, timescales, and resources; addressing problem-solving and

blockage management.

Management and development of processes: the use of interpersonal skills

and interaction with technology to gain the maximum contribution from each

individual; and ensuring as full a flexibility of operation as possible.

Managing communications: between different work groups, disciplines and

professions, and within particular work groups; addressing the needs, wants

and expectations of particular occupations within work groups; to recognize

and manage the potential for conflicts.

Managing and developing the individual: making constructive use of individual

differences; ensuring that individual contributions are both valued and of

value.

Management style: creating and developing the desired, and required,

aspects of environment, behaviour and culture; developing the distinctive

managerial expertise required to ensure that this is managed and developed.

Maintenance management: ensuring that administration and support services

are suitable for the needs of the group

Sharing vision and mission of the academic institution: that are understood,

valued and adopted by everyone concerned; these remain the overriding

common purpose for being in the situation; they are harmonized with

individual and occupational objectives.

69

Team spirit: developing a combination of the shared values, ethics and ethos

of the particular group or team and the extent of the positive identity and

loyalty that members have to each other, as well as to the tasks in hand and

to the overall objectives. Group and team spirit must always be positive;

where negative elements exist, these must be addressed as a matter of

priority.

For groups to remain effective, monitoring and review processes and activities

must be developed and become in-built. They must take the form both of

continuous processes and activities, and of regular formal progress meetings.

All groups also benefit from external feedback, monitoring and contacts. Such

reviews must take account of all elements. All contributions to the overall

effectiveness of performance of groups must be addressed. Dysfunction in

any of these detracts from the totality of performance, outputs, tasks,

purposes and cohesion.

Practices of collaborative knowledge sharing to enhance organizational

learning.

Faculty Development Program: faculty development programs promote

knowledge sharing and improve quality of teaching.

Communities Of Practice (COP): communities of practice (informal or

formal groups of people with similar and responsibilities and / or

interests facilitate collaborative knowledge of sharing

Industry Institute interaction: The academic institutions and the IT

Industry can mutually benefit through closer cooperation and

collaboration.

2.6.1: Faculty development programs:

Faculty development programs support the training and development of

faculty members. Training may be defined as a planned learning experience

designed to bring change in an individual‘s knowledge. Since knowledge is a

key economic resource and source of competitive advantage, effective

70

training is most important to instill knowledge 12. The faculty development

programs need to be planned and designed with the following objectives:

To introduce a range of teaching pedagogies to enable the faculty as

outstanding teachers.

To deepen the functional areas of expertise of the individual

participants.

To provide exposure towards skills and techniques related to

classroom management process for the participants.

To hone the skills of teachers in developing contemporary

comprehensive courses in their subject area of expertise.

In order to provide effective training to the faculty members, it is important for

the academic institutions to understand the reasons because of which, the

new knowledge is gained through attending the faculty development

programs. The reasons are as follows:

1. Knowledge sharing amongst faculty.

2. Depth of knowledge of speaker.

3. Hands on experience/practice

4. The program is objective focused.

5. The program content was logically presented.

6. The knowledge gained through this program is directly applicable to the

job.

7. Effective opportunities to clear doubts in question and answer session.

8. The contents of the program facilitated learning.

9. Duration of the program was adequate.

10. Program accelerated thought process.

11. Opportunity to develop interpersonal relationships.

12. Interaction with industrial experts

71

2.6.2 Communities Of practice: The key to knowledge strategy

Communities of practice are everywhere. Even though they are informally

constituted and reside within a specific area of practice, these self-organizing

systems share the capacity to create and use organizational knowledge

through informal learning and mutual engagement.

If communities of practice are the natural stewards of knowledge in an

organization, what does a knowledge strategy look like that takes this as

its foundation? What is its overall shape?

A knowledge strategy based on communities of practice consists of seven

basic steps grouped into four streams of activity:

1. Understand strategic knowledge needs: what knowledge is critical to

success?

2. Engage practice domains (find communities): where will people form

communities around practices they can engage in and identify with?

3. Develop communities: how to help key communities reach their full

potential?

FIGURE 2.3 A Knowledge Strategy Based on Communities of Practice.

72

Note that the strategy is not linear. Rather it is an ongoing, dynamic

process of renewing the capabilities of the organization by cycling

through these steps. The strategy does not simply start at step 1 and end

at step 7. Steps can happen in parallel, and every step can be a point of

entry into the whole process. You may start at step 1 mapping the

knowledge needs of a business strategy and the practices required to

realize this strategy. But you may also start at step 3 if some people

want to connect better with their peers by forming communities, or at

step 4 if some communities need to learn how to communicate across

boundaries. You may even start with a need to foster belonging in order to

solidify your organization and galvanize it around its mission. No matter

where you start, eventually you will need to have the whole wheel rolling.

4. Work the boundaries: how to link communities into broader learning

systems?

5. Foster belonging: how to engage people's identities and sense of

meaning?

6. Run the academic institution: how to integrate communities of practice

into running the academic institution?

7. Apply, assess, reflect, and renew: how to deploy a knowledge strategy

through waves of organizational transformation?

The overall structure of this knowledge strategy is represented in Figure

2.3.The first six steps are paired in three curved arrows that represent three

streams of activity, with the fourth in the centre keeping the momentum of the

whole process. The shading indicates both, the tension between the steps

in one arrow and balancing at the end of one arrow with the beginning of

the next. The double arrows at the breaks indicate interactions with three

kinds of broader socio-economic systems in which an academic institution

participates:

73

It participates with other institutes in competition and where it learns about

needs and opportunities.

It also participates in talent market because its ability to respond to its

knowledge challenge depends upon its ability to recruit, develop and retain

talented faculty members.

It participates in ―Social learning systems‖, such as an industry or a

consortium where learning requirements blur relations of collaboration.

The spread and development of communities of practice must be understood

as a learning process. It gains momentum with various combinations of top-

down directives and encouragement and bottom-up initiative and responsive-

ness. In companies such as Shell, HP, and the World Bank, the process is

vigorously promoted but quite open, and communities of practice are invited to

take the initiative. (At the World Bank, the number of registered communities of

practice grew very rapidly from about 30 to more than 100 after it was

announced that the organization would respond to initiatives with support.) Even

companies such as DaimlerChrysler, AMS, and Lucent, that have adopted a

more directive approach have left room for emerging communities of practice

to prosper and make a case for their value.

At DaimlerChrysler, engineering communities of practice, called "Tech Clubs,"

bring together specialists in a particular subsystem, such as brakes or seats.

These Tech Clubs ensure that the company's expertise across all car

platforms is world-class. They discuss issues, coordinate efforts, document engi-

neering practices and lessons learned, maintain relationships with vendors,

make recommendations to purchasing, and work closely with training and

competitive teardown. But the Tech Clubs are Tech Clubs; they don't build

cars, or even parts. This is something their members do in their car-platform

teams where they apply their expertise to fulfilling line responsibilities.

A collaborative knowledge sharing strategy based on communities of practice is

not a plan to be designed and implemented. It is more similar to a social

74

movement that gains momentum as a new idea spreads, changing people's

expectations and sense of possibilities. The purpose is to create a cycle of

application, assessment, reflection, and renewal by which an organization learns

through action how to identify and take responsibility for key areas of

knowledge.

2.6.3 Industry Institute Interaction:

Interactions between industry and academic institutions, IT education in

particular is vital for development. For a sustained development of

economy, a close collaboration between academic institutions and industry

is essential. Such collaboration provides a curriculum relevant to national

development and needed research activity. The management institutions

specifically related to IT education produce trained manpower as the output

to meet the needs of the IT industry every year where as the IT Industry

considers that the majority of the output lack the necessary job-site skills

required by the industry. So, the education system should be developed

which is responsive to the latest technologies which can take care of

competitive market. Thus creating collaboration between academic

institutions related to IT education and IT industry is the need of the hour in

order to meet the future challenges.

The exponential growth of knowledge and rapid change of Information

Technology is another global trend. Knowledge is doubling almost every 3

years. The resultant obsolescence of knowledge and skill has implications

for Human Resource Development. The rapid rate of accumulation of new

knowledge and fast pace of technological change mean a need for regular

knowledge and skill updating. To overcome this, there is a need to increase

the collaboration between industry and interaction.

2.6.3.1 Modes of Industry Institute interaction:

Interaction can take place through extended invitation to industry

representatives of large Industrial units ,Owners of small /medium

enterprises on opening and closing sessions of training programs and

during various/events of the Institute.

75

Training and Placement activity of the academic institute.

Advanced level of linkage through signing of Memorandum of

understanding (MOU) or establishment of research centre.

CONCLUSION

Setting and maintaining the highest possible standards of individual and

collective development, and underpinning these with strong positive attitudes

and values, means that the academic institution is likely to be fundamentally

acceptable in any discipline, where it chooses to conduct its activities. These

standards transcend local, cultural, social and religious pressures because

they are designed to ensure:

the principles on which they are based

the human values present, and

the wider contribution made

are universally desired, rather than simply meeting local, legal and operational

minima.

76

REFERENCES

1. Dodgson, M. (1993), ―Organizational learning – a review of some

literature‖, Organization Studies 14(3), 375-394.

2. C. Marlane Fiol and Marjorie A. Lyles, ―Organizational Learning‖,

Academy of Management Review, October 1985.

3. Schulz, M. ―The Uncertain Relevance of Newness: Organisational

learning and Knowledge Flows‖, Academy of Management Journal,

Vol. 44. No.4,2001, PP.661-681.

4. E. David Smith ―Knowledge Groupware, and the Internet‖, Butterworth-

Heinemann (2000).

5. Brown, J. S. and Puguid, P. "Organizational Learning and Communities

of Practice," Organization Science 2 (1991): 40-57.

6. Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1978), ―Organizational Learning‖, Harper &

Row.

7. Schmidt, W. H. and Finnegan, J. P. (1992), ―The Race Without a Finish

Line: America's Quest for Total Quality‖, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

8. Leonard-Barton, D. "The Factory as a Learning Laboratory," Sloan

Management Review, Fall 1992, pp. 39-52.

9. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral

Participation (Palo Alto California: Institute for Research on Learning,

IBL Report 90-0013, 1990).

10. Argyris, C. Strategy, Change, and Defensive Routines (Boston:

Putman, 1985).

11. Srivastra, S. and Cooperrider, D. L. and Associates, Appreciative

Management and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990).

77

12. De Long, D. and Fahey, L. (2000). ―Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to

Knowledge Management‖, The Academy of Management Executive,

November, Vol.14,No.4,pp.113-127.

13. Drucker, P. P., 1995, Managing in a Time of Great Change, Truman

Talley, New York.

14. Rao, M. (2005), ―Knowledge Management tools and Techniques:

Practitioners and Experts evaluate KM solutions‖, Butterworth

Heinermann.