| >Working Papers | |
|
|
Working Paper 98-17 Paul
S. Goodman (412)
268-2288 Fernando
Olivera Organizational learning has become a central theme for organizational and management theorists and practitioners (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Levitt and March, 1988; Senge, 1990; Nadler, Gerstein and Shaw, 1992). Indeed, improvement of learning processes is viewed as one of the major determinants of organizational effectiveness (Stata, 1989; Adler, 1990). Organizational learning can be derived from one's own experiences or the experiences of others. We examine knowledge sharing among geographically -distributed units which essentially do the same thing. In order for organizations to benefit from learning, ideas and knowledge that improve effectiveness in one unit must be transferred to other units. We focus on computer-aided systems because they represent a promising method for facilitating exchanges of knowledge. Our
setting is populated with global corporations with multiple geographically-distributed
units. The units produce similar products and services. Organizational
learning deals with the exchange, storage, and shared interpretation
of problems and solutions across these geographically- distributed
units. The basic research question is how can organizations facilitate
knowledge exchange between Rationale The motivations for this research are the following: 1.Organizational learning has become a central theme in organizational research. There is a growing body of theoretical (Levitt and March, 1988; Huber, 1991) and empirical work (Argote, 1993). We contribute to this body of research by focusing on an area which has not been fully explored--learning in an international context. How does the international context affect learning exchanges? 2.There is growing evidence that computer-aided systems are changing many organizational processes such as communication (Kiesler and Sproull, 1987), group decision making (Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire, 1984), coordination (Rice and Shook, 1990), and collaborative work (Kraut, Galegher, Fish, and Chalfonte, 1992). However, there are relatively few studies dealing with computer-aided systems for facilitating organizational learning within an organization (Sproull and Kiesler, 1986; Orlikowski, 1993; Constant, Sproull and Kiesler, 1995). We need more studies in different organizational contexts. One important context is the use of these systems in international settings. How are problems and solutions exchanged within and between units of the same company in different countries?
3.Our examination of computer-based systems for organizational learning
also provides an opportunity for theory development. There are some
unique features of these computer-based systems. For example, the
motivation to contribute solutions to geographically- distributed
units may be fundamentally different from communication in a "weak
tie" environment (Feldman, 4.This research also should contribute to practice. The basic argument in this research is that national differences and similarities will affect unique features of using computer-aided learning systems. This process evokes a set of underlying dilemmas associated with international knowledge transfer via computer-aided systems. Understanding the features and dilemmas are necessary for effectively designing and managing computer-aided learning systems in multinational firms. Theoretical Framework In our framework, we clarify our use of organizational learning and then focus on some theoretical issues that drive problem-solution exchanges. Basic Concepts As the
literature on organizational learning grows, so does the number
of definitions (Argyris and Schon, 1978, Levitt and March, 1988;
Huber, 1991; Nonaka, 1994). In this paper we restrict our analysis
to situations where there are geographically-distributed units performing
similar functions. Learning at one level occurs when one unit discovers
a problem, seeks a solution from another unit, the
The distinction between organizational and individual level learning can further delineate our understanding of organizational learning (Argote, 1993; Kim, 1993). Consider the following examples: A marketing manager in Los Angeles has a problem with the sales of a new product, and seeks help from the company's marketing manager in London. Let's also assume the London manager contributes a solution which is adopted and implemented successfully in Los Angeles. At this point, the exchanges of problems and solutions are at the "individual level". To create "organizational level" learning, (1) the problem-solution exchanges and consequences need to be communicated and known by other organizational members, (2) there needs to be some form of organizational memory (Walsh and Ungson, 1991) which stores problem-solution exchanges and consequences, and (3) given the dynamic nature of problem-solution exchanges across multiple units, there needs to be a mechanism for organizations to share their interpretations (Brown and Duguid, 1991) about the problem-solutions exchanges and update the organizational memory about their experiences. Computer-aided
systems have some unique features for facilitating organizational
learning. First, they can provide fast and efficient communication,
bridging space and time. Second, many systems have the capability
of creating an organizational memory for all members. Third, computer-
Studies
by Constant et al. (1995), Orlikowski (1993), and Goodman and Darr
(1998) illustrate different forms of computer-aided systems for
learning across distributed work settings. These systems differ
from e-mail systems in the following respects: there is a memory
device accessible and known to all members and a mechanism where
organizational members can dynamically share and
Theoretical Issues This research focuses on three theoretical issues-factors affecting the decision to contribute, to adopt, and the role of international context in knowledge sharing. The Motivational Issue. The
fundamental processes underlying the exchange of problems and solutions
across distributed organization There are inherent inhibitors to the motivation to contribute. Why should someone contribute solutions to problems in a distributed organizational environment? Rewards in helping strangers are less likely to be as strong as when helping others who have similar or personal connections with the contributor (Krackhardt, 1992). Also, exchanges with low probability of reciprocity may not be initiated (Thorn and Connolly, 1987). A third inhibitor is that providing help takes time and energy (Constant et al., 1995). Also, the contributor may expect that the act of providing help may evoke requests for additional clarification or more assistance, which will increase costs. There
are also inhibitors to the motivation to adopt. First, searching
for possible solutions outside one's local environment requires
time and effort. Second, matching problems and solutions also may
be costly. Third, even if a problem-solution match were identified,
the adopter must rely on people who are not well known and on information
not easily verifiable. Lastly, asking for help creates an
The
basic argument is that there are inherent motivational inhibitors
in the decision to contribute or to adopt. These decisions also
occur in an organizational context which has independent effects
on these decisions. Specifically, contextual factors such as the
organizational International Context. This research examines knowledge sharing in an international context. eographically-distributed offices are located in four different countries. The issue is whether international context affects knowledge sharing. We approach this issue by identifying the critical institutional systems in a country, such as the economic, government, educational, family, cultural, and so on. The next step is to see how these systems and their differences affect the research questions about contributing or adopting knowledge. There are clear institutional differences across the four countries in this study. The question is whether these differences relate to the decisions to contribute or to adopt. This study focuses on three questions:
1.What are the factors that facilitate or inhibit the way people
contribute knowledge in distributed settings?
Knowledge
sharing occurs in an organizational context. An important element
of that context is the values, norms, and beliefs that guide human
behavior. From the early work of Trist and Bamforth (1951) to more
recent work (Orlikowski, 1993), culture plays an important role
in shaping organizational processes such as knowledge sharing. The
effectiveness of any computer-aided system will be
Sample Data was collected from five offices of a global consulting firm. In each office, we interviewed 15 consultants and provided a short survey to all the participants. Two offices were located in the US, two in Europe, and one in Canada. Instruments The
basic instruments in this study included (1) an interview to measure
office characteristics (e.g., size, rewards) and institutions of
the country in which the office is located; (2) a one and a half
hour interview with consultants about their work, information environment,
adoption and contribution activities, etc.; and (3) a survey of
all office members about their evaluations of the information environment
for knowledge sharing. A summary of some of the basic results includes: 1. Contributions Most people we interviewed do not make contributions to other offices in the firm. Contributions at the local office level are more frequent than contributions outside the office. 33% of our respondents contributed solutions (ideas, methods, deliverables) outside of their office. 19% of our respondents responded to questions posted to computer assisted systems (CAS). 15% of our respondents posted resources to CAS. 9% of our respondents made contributions to help desks. 43% of our respondents made contributions to local databases.
The major reasons why people do not make contributions include:
Implications Sharing quality solutions should improve the effectiveness of the organization, but there are significant barriers for contributing. 2. Use of Personal Networks When solving problems, managers and consultants rely more heavily on personal networks than on computer-based systems to obtain information. Respondents evaluated people inside and outside the office as more effective sources of work-related information than any computer-based knowledge tool. Consultants and managers rely heavily on other people as sources of information:
"I always start by asking people around the office. If that fails,
I bet they will tell me about someone in the firm who
"It turns out that, no matter how many tools you have, it's still a people network and that's how you find things." "The best way to obtain information is to ask people. I've cultivated a network for a reason." There is a wide variation in managers and consultants skills in navigating the information environment. Some rely primarily on their personal networks, some on computer- based information tools and some on a combination of computer-based tools and personal networks. Implications The information environment has a rich amount of information on who can help to solve problems and how to solve problems. This environment is not fully exploited. 3. Evaluation of Computer-Based Tools Computer-based knowledge tools are evaluated as effective by a majority of our respondents. However, there is wide variation in familiarity with these tools. 60% of the office personnel feel computer-based knowledge tools improve their job performance; approximately 40% think these tools improve organizational performance. The following table shows the percentage of respondents who reported being familiar with each computer-based tool and, of those who were familiar, the percentage who evaluated the tool as effective.
Implications A large percentage of respondents are not familiar with several computer-based tools. The Internet and third-party databases are considered effective tools, particularly for obtaining current information. The firm's computer-based tools are considered less effective. 4. Role of Help Desks Help Desks are considered an effective mechanism for knowledge sharing, but many consultants and managers are not familiar with any of them. Approximately 70 % of respondents who are familiar with Help Desks rate them as effective. Only 49 % of our respondents are familiar with Help Desks. Some
responses from our interviews are: "They point you to where you need to go for more information" "In my experience, they are very effective. They always have the information I need" Implications Help Desks are an important mechanism for knowledge sharing within the firm. They can serve as organized communities of practice. There is a need to engage people in using the Help Desks in order to increase their understanding of the Help Desks functions. 5. Knowledge-Sharing Culture There is a strong culture for knowledge-sharing within each office. The culture is not strong for sharing between offices. Approximately 70% of the office personnel believe that knowledge sharing within their office is encouraged. Approximately 34% believe that knowledge sharing with other offices is encouraged. Approximately
38% believe that learning and experimenting with new ideas within
their office is encouraged. Knowledge
sharing is facilitated when it is supported by a culture for learning.
Most respondents do not believe the culture encourages
learning
and experimenting. The culture for knowledge sharing within an office
is strong. The culture is not strong for knowledge sharing
6. Pointer and Content Knowledge Respondents place a strong value on acquiring pointer knowledge that directs them to content knowledge. Computer-based tools are used as sources of pointer knowledge. Partners and secretaries are key sources of pointer knowledge. People use pointer knowledge to find information: "My general approach when I need expertise is to look for people in this office and ask them to direct me to where I should go." The current information environment does not adequately support access to pointer knowledge. "It took calling 14 people to find the information I needed. I started with one person I knew who directed me to others and so on." "I wish we had a good skills database where I can find out who knows what." Social network data shows that partners and secretaries are the most frequented sources of advice on where to find work related information. Implication An important activity in knowledge acquisition is identifying pointer knowledge (who are the experts who can help me) versus content knowledge (what I need to know). Personal networks are an important source of pointer knowledge. Current computer-based systems are not designed to access pointer knowledge effectively. 7. Process and Design Improvements The information environment for managers and consultants is becoming more complex. There is need for (1) training on how to use these systems, (2) filtering mechanisms to access relevant information more effectively, (3) updating mechanisms to reduce the amount of data that is less timely, and (4) facilitating the development of communities of practice. Respondents expressed a need for training in the use of computer-based knowledge tools: "I would put a stronger emphasis on training. No one teaches you how to use these tools. We have not received an orientation to . . . (CAS)." "I know I am not using the tools the way I should, but the problem is no one tells you how to use them, you are just thrown in the water." Respondents expressed a need for mechanisms for organizing and filtering information: "We need a single indexing system. Currently, our information is still distributed across many places" "I would make it so that I can go to a single place and it will direct me to where the information is" "The firm has a spectacular amount of information , but I just can't navigate it and find what I need" Respondents expressed a need to maintain the quality and currency of information: "I would focus on improving the quality of the things that are in the databases" "I would hire knowledge sharing coordinators to do a better job in increasing the quality and volume of information." "A lot of stuff there is old. I need more current information." An important distinction in knowledge sharing processes is between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be stored in text-based systems such as . . .. Interactive person-based systems are more relevant for tacit knowledge exchanges. The current computer-based systems do not facilitate the distinction between explicit and knowledge transfer. Communities
of practice facilitate tacit knowledge transfer. Attending training
centers facilitates the development of personal networks.
Ties to a Competency Center and virtual teams may contribute to
communities of practice. Other mechanisms to
8. International International factors did not directly affect the contribution or adoption processes. The study collected data from the same organization in five offices in four countries. While there are institutional and educational differences across countries, there was similarity in the hiring profile for new consultants. The most pronounced difference is that the country-city location of the office affected the kinds of jobs that were available. For example, while process reengineering was a common activity, the country-city location influenced whether these jobs were more in the private versus public sector. The more unique the client-job combination, the less likely one would see contribution or adoption activities. Conclusion Knowledge
sharing in distributed environments is an important way to improve
unit and organizational effectiveness. Most global organizations
operate in this distributed setting. While there are benefits to
knowledge sharing, there are important inhibitors. There are clear
inherent costs in contributing and adopting. This creates a challenge
to designers of organizations and organizational information environments.
this report identifies some of the critical issues for designers.
References Adler, P. S. "Shared Learning," Management Science, 36, 1990, pp. 939-957. Argote,
L. "Group and Organizational Learning Curves: Individual, System
and Environmental Components," British Argyris, C. and Schon, D. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA 1978. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. "Organizational Learning and Communities of practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation," Organization Science (2:1), 1991, pp. 40-57. Constant, D., Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. "The Kindness of Strangers: On the Usefulness of Weak Ties for Technical Advice," Organization Science, in press, 1995. Darr, E.D. "Partner Similarity and Knowledge Transfer in Franchised Organizations," Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, 1994. Darr, E.D. "Leveraging Local Creativity and Diffusing Global Knowledge: The Impact of Lotus Notes," Working Paper, Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, 1995. Feldman, M.S. "Electronic Mail and Weak Ties in Organizations," Office: Technology and People, 1987 (3), pp. 3-101. Goodman, P.S. and Darr, E.D., "Computer-aided Systems and Communities as Mechanisms for Organizational Learning," accepted for publication, MIS Quarterly, 1998. Huber, G.P. "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature," Organization Science (2:1), February 1991, pp. 88-115. Kiesler, S., and Sproull, L. Computing and Change on Campus, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1987. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., and McGuire, T. "Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-mediated Communication," American Psychologist (39:10), October 1984, pp. 1123- 1134. Kim, D.H. "The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning," Sloan Management Review (35), Fall 1993, pp. 37-50. Krackhardt, D. "The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations," In Organizations and Networks: Structure, Form, and Action, N. Nohria and R. Eccles (eds.), Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1992, pp. 216-239. Kraut, R., Galegher, J., Fish, R., and Chalfonte, B. "Task Requirements and Media Choice in Collaborative Writing," Human-Computer Interaction (7), 1992, pp. 375-407. Levitt, B. and March, J.G. "Organizational Learning," Annual Review of Sociology (14), 1988, pp. 319-340. Nadler, D.A., Gerstein, M.S. and Shaw, R.B. Organizational Architecture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1992. Nonaka, I. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science (5:1), February 1994, pp. 14-37. Orlikowski, W.J. "Learning from Notes: Organizational Issues in Groupware Implementation," The Information Society (9), 1993, pp. 237-250. Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension³, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1966. Rice, R.E. and Shook, D.E. "Voice Messaging, Coordination, and Communication," In Intellectual Teamwork, J. Galegher, R. Kraut and C. Egido (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990, pp. 327-350. Senge,
P. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday Currency, New York, NY, Sproull,
L. and Kiesler, S. "Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail
in Organizational Communication," Stata, R. "Organizational Learning--The Key to Management Innovation," Sloan Management Review (30), Spring, 1989, pp. 63-74. Thorn,
B.K. and Connolly, T. "Discretionary Data Bases: A Theory and Some
Experimental Findings," Communication Trist,
E. and Bamforth, K. "Some Social and Psychological Consequences
of the Longwall Method of Coal Getting," Walsh, J. and Ungson, G.R. "Organizational Memory," Academy of Management Review (16:1), 1991, pp. 57-91. Walton, R. Up and Running, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1989. Zuboff, S. The Age of the Smart Machine, Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY, 1985, pp. 174-218. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
