Knowledge + Learning = Performance

While the roles of a CLO and CKO often have similar elements, there are unique responsibilities that each one holds. The role of a CLO is to “leverage learning through the culture of an organization, the type of knowledge and learning it wants to emphasize, and how technologically focused it is” (Dalkir, 2005, p. 292). The CKO, on the other hand, is responsible for “formulating [a] knowledge management strategy, handling knowledge management operations, influencing change in the organization, and managing knowledge management staff” (Rusonow as cited in Dalkir, 2005, p. 290). This brief will examine the strategic planning role of CLOs and CKOs, compare their roles and responsibilities, and provide a profile of the individuals in these roles at a national nonprofit organization.

Strategic Planning Role of CLOs

The strategic planning role of CLOs revolves around establishing the strategic importance of learning, leveraging learning as a key linkage within the organization, and managing learning as a business. It is critical that CLOs demonstrate the strategic importance of learning in the organization. This can be done through efforts targeted to both the senior leadership team as well as within the learning function. With the senior leadership team, Baldwin & Danielson (2000) encourage CLOs to raise the level of inquiry and work with the senior leadership team to craft the business strategy rather than play a support role of only helping to rollout or implement new business strategies. Jones (2007) encourages CLOs to work with the senior leadership team to help “leaders to take a look at the talent implications of the strategies and initiatives that they have going on” and to integrate “development into conversations about corporate objectives…[plus] show senior line management how learning relates to their strategic goals and teach them their role in the development process” (p. 52). Within the learning function, Phillips (2004) encourages CLOs to develop a strategic plan including determining the mission, vision, values, and strategic objectives for the learning organization plus “identifying stakeholders, audiences, services, and scope of the [learning] function” (p. 50).

The second key strategic planning role of CLOs is leveraging learning as a key linkage within the organization. In fulfilling the strategic role of CLO, Baldwin & Danielson (2000) argue that this position needs to ensure that there is a strong strategic linkage and business case established for all initiatives and to link “directly to the strategic direction of the firm” (p. 12). Phillips (2004) recommends linking learning “to the business issues to ensure that learning requests are not based on faulty assumptions or inadequate analyses” (p. 52). Finally, the third key strategic planning role of CLOs is managing learning as a business. This begins by working with the senior leadership team to set the preferred investment level and strategy that can include any of the following options: “[1] let others do it…[2] invest only the minimum…[3] invest [the same as] the rest…[4] invest until it hurts…[or 5] invest as long as there is a payoff” (Phillips, 2004, p. 50). Once the investment level is set, the CLO needs to “produce tangible value for the investment” in learning through tracking and managing by critical performance measures (Baldwin & Danielson, 2000, p. 13).

Strategic Planning Role of CKOs

Turning now to CKOs, Awaza & Desouza (2004) argue that CKOs are responsible for “[1] institutionalizing knowledge sharing incentives, [2] breaking knowledge bottlenecks in the organization that impede smooth knowledge flows, [and 3] embedding knowledge into the work practices and processes” (p. 343). Bonner recommends that CKOs work to “locate knowledge within a company and find ways to capture, distribute, and create more of it” (p. 37). Furthermore, CKOs are responsible to:

1. Leverage the technical infrastructure to better manager the transfer and flow of explicit knowledge assets.
2. Foster and develop social mechanisms to enable the exchange of tacit know-how, skills, and abilities.
3. Manage the flow of knowledge between an organization and its business partners…
4. …set the direction, structure, and give direction as [to] how to manage the content in [knowledge] repositories, from a logical point of view. (Awaza & Desouza, 2004, p. 341)

Comparison of CLO and CKO Roles and Responsibilities

To compare the responsibilities of the CLO and CKO, Awaza & Desouza (2004) do an excellent job of simplifying the differences by arguing:

CKOs are mainly responsible for leveraging existing knowledge resources in the firm [and] CLOs are mainly responsible for managing the knowledge generating agents of the organization…[by] infusing them with new training and development so that they can create knowledge to be managed. (p. 342)

In other words, the CLO and the learning function should focus on functional skill development and creating capacity to create knowledge while the CKO and knowledge function takes the output of learning and focuses on dissemination, providing access, and promoting an environment and opportunities for knowledge creation and sharing.

References

Awaza, Y. & Desouza, K. (2004). The knowledge chiefs: CKOs, CLOs, and CPOs. European Management Journal, 22(3), 339-344.

Baldwin, T. & Danielson, C. (2000). Building a learning strategy at the top: Interviews with ten of America's CLOs. Business Horizons, 43(6), 5-14.

Bonner, D. (2000). Enter the chief knowledge officer. Training & Development, 54(2), 36-40.

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Buttwrworth-Heinemann.

Jones, T. (2007). Raising the stakes: The strategic role of the CLO. Chief Learning Officer, 6(11), 52.

Phillips, J. (2004). The CLO's critical role: Nine areas for action. Chief Learning Officer, 3(12), 50-53.

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

Knowledge and learning management initiatives have the potential for making a significant impact on organizational culture and how work is conducted. For example, imagine the shift from a knowledge-hoarding culture to one where knowledge is freely shared and employees work cross-functionally to generate new knowledge and innovations. Dalkir (2005) argues that “corporate culture is a key component of ensuring that critical knowledge and information flow within an organization” (p. 185). To operationalize such organizational culture changes, change management is a critical component for the success of any knowledge and/or learning management initiative. And if the knowledge management initiative is one of an organization’s first, the culture changing implications can be very far-reaching. Thus, having a strategy for managing the change becomes critical for successful implementation.

In looking at change management for knowledge initiatives, Schein (as cited in Dalkir, 2005) “uses the classic three-step approach to discuss change: unfreezing, cognitive restructuring, and refreezing” (p. 184). Schein also emphasizes the importance of the role of leadership in facilitating the change. Cameron & Green (2004) further recommend that “leaders of change need to balance their efforts across all three dimensions of an organizational change: [1] outcomes: developing and delivering clear outcomes; [2] interests: mobilizing influence, authority and power; [3] emotions: enabling people and culture to adapt” (p. 5). These dimensions can be very important in a knowledge and learning management initiative since sharing knowledge—and other aspects that go along with many of these initiatives—can be very scary or intimidating to people. As Cavaleri & Seivert (2005) share, “continually improving the quality of your knowledge for action…is not always easy or comfortable. It means a willingness to be a learning-novice when you enter unknown territory, and also a willingness to change beliefs and behavior when you discover they are no longer effective” (p. 78).

Cavaleri & Seivert (2005) also offer the following advice: “During change efforts, including knowledge initiatives, leaders must be careful to safeguard and sustain [the] essential parts of the organization [such as function, identity, values, and essence] while simultaneously letting go of what is not essential to it” (p. 314). By staying true to their essence and those things that make the organization sustainable, organizations can act efficiently and effectively. Without this central focus, it is all too easy to focus on the wrong things—like simply making money, which is not a goal but a desired end-product for many businesses.

Ultimately, by linking to the company’s essence, knowledge and learning management initiatives can become strategic levers for mobilizing cultural changes that can lead to the growth and sustainability of the organization.

References:

Cameron, E. & Green, M. (2004). Making sense of change management. London: Kogan page.

Cavaleri, S. & Seivert, S. (2005). Knowledge leadership: The art and science of the knowledge-based organization. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

Informative/Transformative Learning versus Human /Social Capital Paradigms

This paper explores the parallels between informative and transformative learning to the human capital and social capital paradigms, as well as their relation to worklong and lifelong learning. Definitions and the theory for these concepts are introduced, followed by the implications of how the theories relate to one another. The paper then concludes with the author’s personal reflections as an adult learner and educator experiencing these theories in practice.

Theory

Burton (2006) defines informational learning as “the acquisition of knowledge… [and changing] the amount we know about something” (p. 2). In contrast, “transformational learning has affective, interpersonal, and moral dimensions… [and is thus] about how we know and not about what we know” (Burton, 2006, p. 2). Imel (1998) expands on transformational learning, claiming that there are “two views of transformative learning… one [Mezirow’s] advocates a rational approach that depends primarily on critical reflection whereas the other [Boyd and Myers’] relies more on intuition and emotion” (p. 4).

The human capital paradigm calls for lifelong learning that prepares individuals for their economic contributions to their organizations, communities, and society overall. The human capital paradigm thus focuses on building one’s storehouse of skills and knowledge in preparation for contributions to generating tangible goods and traditional forms of capital. Social capital is more subjective and holistic, being something developed and measured based on “social values and norms,…working for the common good,…[and] social well-being” (Kerka, 2000). Robison & Flora (2003) add that the social capital paradigm “describes the influence of relationships on social, emotional, and economic transactions” (p. 1187) and “combines our interest in transactions involving tangible goods and services created by traditional forms of capital [with] transactions involving intangible or socio-emotional goods created by social capital” (p. 1191).

Implications

In considering the connections between worklong learning and lifelong learning versus the human capital/social capital paradigms and informative/transformative learning, one can see particularly strong connections between worklong learning, the human capital paradigm, and informative learning. Informative learning is about increasing how much we know. Similarly, the goal of the human capital paradigm is to “build [one’s] ‘capital’ by developing skills and accumulating educational qualifications [whose] outcomes are measured in terms of income, productivity, and other economic indicators of success” (Kerka, 2000). This closely parallels the goals of worklong learning that “focuses on preparation for occupational goals” (Kerka, 2000). Worklong learning can be considered the focus of most workplace learning (or training), as well as many academic programs that have a pragmatic (rather than liberal arts) approach.

Similarly strong connections can be seen across lifelong learning, the social capital paradigm, and transformational learning. Lifelong learning encompasses many of the meta-learning skills that can be applied to everything that one learns over a lifetime, thus preparing “individuals for a variety of life roles, including citizenship” (Kerka, 2000)—very similar to the goals and purpose of the social capital paradigm. For example, this would include an individual’s ability to “take responsibility for learning, learn through research, reflect and evaluate, [and] use information and communications technology” (Kerka, 2001). Applied via critical thinking skills, lifelong learning also includes the “transformative learning [that] involves a questioning of assumptions and a fundamental rethinking of premises” (Kerka, 2001). Mezirow himself argued for the need for critical reflection as part of this process, arguing that “transformative learning occurs when individuals change their frames of reference by critically reflecting on their assumptions and beliefs and consciously making and implementing plans that bring about new ways of defining their worlds” (Imel, 1998, p. 3). Furthermore, “transformative learners move toward a frame of reference that is more inclusive, discriminating, self-reflective, and integrative of experience” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5).

To enhance social capital and foster an environment for transformational learning involves a shared responsibility between both the facilitator and the learners. The facilitator needs to establish “an environment that builds trust and care and facilitate the development of sensitive relationships among learners…[and] consider how they can help students connect the rational and the affective by using feelings and emotions both in critical reflection and as a means of reflection” (Taylor as cited in Imel, 1998, p. 4-5). It is important to note that the responsibility does not lie with the facilitator alone; learners also share in creating and supporting “the conditions under which transformative learning can occur” (Imel, 1998, p. 5). Furthermore, educators must “help learners become aware and critical of their own and others’ assumptions, … [and] assume responsibility for setting objectives that explicitly include autonomous thinking and recognize that this requires experiences designed to foster critical reflectivity and experience in discourse” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 10).

Practice

As an adult learner and workplace learning and performance improvement professional, I have experienced and been a part of numerous learning programs with a worklong, human capital, and informative learning approach. In many cases, transformative learning is something saved for executive and management development—and even that is often relegated to “special” topics and not woven into the overall program. Additionally, when discovery learning techniques are designed into a program, all too often it is the time for reflection and debrief/discourse that are the first to be cut from the agenda when time is tight. This unfortunately minimizes learning’s potential to truly transform.

Sadly, this experience extends to my academic experience as well; not until I began my doctoral studies did I begin to take part in more transformative learning opportunities that encourage critical thinking and reflection. While I am still a strong supporter of a very pragmatic approach to education, it is disappointing that even my graduate program experiences did not expose me to the necessary autonomous thinking skills for building social as well as human capital. Armed with this enhanced awareness, I hope to help others see the truth in the following statement from Mezirow and to take the necessary actions to ensure the development of these critical autonomous thinking skills: “For some, any uncritically assimilated explanation by an authority figure will suffice. But in contemporary societies we must learn to make our own interpretations rather than act on the purposes, beliefs, judgments, and feelings of others” (1997, p. 5).

References:

Burton, J. (2006). Transformative learning: The hidden curriculum of adult life. Work Based Learning in Primary Care, 4(1), 1-5.

Imel, S. (1998). Transformative learning in adulthood (ERIC Digest No. 200). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423426)

Kerka, S. (2000). Lifelong learning. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=mr&ID=97

Kerka, S. (2001). The balancing act of adult life. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=digests&ID=114

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 7(74), 5-12.

Robison, L.J., & Flora, J.L. (2003). The social capital paradigm: Bridging across disciplines. Americaon Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(5), 1187-1193.

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

Argote, L. (1999/2005). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. New York: Springer.

Choi, M. (2006). Communities of practice: An alternative learning model for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 143-146.

Clarke, N. (2005). Workplace learning environment and its relationship with learning outcomes in healthcare organizations. Humand Resource Development International, 8(2), 185-205.

Cross, J. (2007). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

De Laat, M. (2006). Networked learning. Unpublished manuscript. University of Utrecht, Utrecht.

Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. In F. Coffield (Ed.), The learning society: The necessity of informal learning (Vol. 4, pp. 12-30). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247-273.

Eraut, M., Alderton, J., Cole, G., & Senker, P. (2002). Learning from other people at work. In R. Harrison, F. Reeve, A. Hanson, & J. Clarke (Eds.), Supporting lifelong learning (Vol. 1, pp. 128-145). New York: Routledge.

Kannan, G., Aulbur, W., & Haas, R. (2005). Knowledge management in practice: Making technology work at DaimlerChrysler. In M. Rao (Ed.), Knowledge management tools and techniques, Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Kaplan, R. S. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3), 353-370.

Kocakulah, M. C. & Austill, A. D. (2007). Balanced scorecard application in the health care industry: A case study. Journal of Health Care Finance, 34(1), 72-99.

Loermans, J. (2002). Synergizing the learning organization and knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(3), 285-294.

Maki-Komsi, S., Poyry, P. & Ropo, E. (2005). Learning and knowledge building in distributed work environment. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 7, 34-55.

Marsick, V. J. (2006). Informal strategic learning in the workplace. In J. Streumer (Ed.), Work-related learning (pp. 51-69). Dordecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. New York: Routledge.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Facilitating learning organizations: Making learning count. Brookfield, Vermont: Gower Publishing.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New directions for adult and continuing education, 2001(89), 25-34.

Marsick, V., Watkins, K., Callahan, M. W., Volpe, M. (2006, February). Reviewing theory and research on informal and incidental learning. Paper presented at Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference, Columbus, OH. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs

Mason, J. (2005). From e-learning to e-knowledge. In M. Rao (Ed.), Knowledge management tools and techniques (pp. 320-328). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

McElroy, M. (2003). The new knowledge management. Burlington, MA: Butterworht-Heinemann.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rao, M. (Ed.). (2005). Knowledge management tools and techniques. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Senge, P. M. (1990/2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assess informal learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 8-20.

Snyder, W. (1997). Communities of practice: Combining organizational learning and strategy insights to create a bridge to the 21st century. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/cols.shtml

Speckbacher, G. (2003). The economic of performance management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13(3), 267-281.

Spence, P. (2005). Knowledge networking on a national scale: A New Zealand case study. In M. Rao (Ed.), Knowledge management tools and techniques (pp. 206-213). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Wallace, D. D., & Colbert, E. M. (2001). Adult learning and collaboration in a school culture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Wenger, E. (1990). Toward a theory of cultural transparency: Elements of a social discourse of the visible and the invisible. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California.

Wenger, E. (1991, Fall). Communities of practice: Where learning happens. Benchmark, pp. 82-84.

Wenger, E. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A quick start-up guide. Retrieved January 9, 2008 from http://www.entreculturas.pt/Media/start-up_guide_PDF.pdf

Wenger, E. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal, 68(3), 1-8.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Seven principles for cultivating communities of practice. In Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge (chap. 3). Retrieved January 9, 2008 from http://www.askmecorp.com/pdf/7Principles_CoP.pdf

Zboralski, K., Salomo, S., & Gemuendon, H.G. (2006). Organizational benefits of communities of practice: A two-stage information processing model. Cybernetics & Systems, 37(6), 533-552.

Introduction

Differing views abound on the relationship of learning and knowledge management. Some believe they are unique and separate disciplines, and others see significant synergy between them. This paper will link learning and knowledge management through an exploration of how learning—and informal learning in particular—offers a viable gateway to accessing tacit knowledge. It will also explore how communities of practice (CoPs) can be an effective knowledge management application for realizing the knowledge creation and sharing potential presented by informal learning. The approach taken will be a review and analysis of the literature for informal learning and CoPs, followed by applied research that shows the role of knowledge management in both informal learning and CoPs. A critical analysis of the literature and research follows, leading to a discussion of the implications for practitioners. The paper concludes with a proposed application of these concepts to a large nonprofit organization; included are key survey results from their recent learning organization assessment plus resulting recommendations for implementation (including potential metrics).

To begin, it is important to understand two of the key concepts that will be covered in this paper: informal learning and CoPs.

Informal Learning

Informal learning is often defined as the individually driven lifelong learning that occurs outside training or a classroom. Depending on the study, informal learning comprises 70, 80, or even 90 percent of workplace learning (Cross, 2007, pp. 243-244). Ironically, most organizations focus their investments on only the 10, 20, or 30 percent of formalized training that occurs inside a classroom, in pre-scheduled meetings, or on a computer via e-learning. Marsick and colleagues have studied and published a great deal on the subject over the last 20 years. In addition, Eraut has performed multiple studies on informal learning in the last decade.

Communities of Practice

Beginning with its roots in anthropology, CoPs have been studied by many since Wenger and Lave first introduced the concept in 1991. CoPs can be defined as “a group of people having common identity [and] professional interests and that undertake to share, participate and establish a fellowship” (Pickett as cited in Dalkir, 2005, p. 112). Dalkir (2005) describes CoPs as typically informally-created groups centered around a common focus or goal, whether a profession, work function, problem, topic, or industry; furthermore, members’ commitment is driven by trust and professional behaviors/practices (p. 124) and they typically possess a virtual workspace in which “to store stories, artifacts, tools, discussions, glossaries, [and] historical events” (p. 125).

Next:

We'll explore the literature that underlies informal learning, communities of practice, and knowledge creation.

References:
http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/references_knowledge_creation.html

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

Literature Review

Informal Learning

To further understand informal learning, Marsick & Watkins (1990, p. 12) contrasted informal learning versus formal learning as follows:

Formal learning is typically institutionally sponsored, classroom-based, and highly structured. Informal learning…may occur in institutions, but it is not typically classroom-based or highly structured, and control of learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner…[Furthermore, it] can be deliberately encouraged by an organization or it can take place despite an environment not highly conducive to learning.

Characteristics of informal learning include a learning process that (a) is integrated with daily routines, (b) is prompted by an unexpected internal or external event, (c) is mostly unconscious, random, and influenced by chance, (d) includes opportunities for reflection and action, and (e) links to the learning of others (Marsick & Volpe as cited in Marsick & Watkins, 2001, p. 28).

Marsick & Watkins’ informal learning model.
Marsick & Watkins (1990) developed a model for enhancing informal learning, which they further modified in later work (Cseh, Watkins, & Marsick, as cited in Marsick & Watkins, 2001). View image
In their model, the center circle of Work and outer circle of Context represent Marsick & Watkins’ “belief that learning grows out of everyday encounters while working and living in a given context” (2001, p. 29). Informal learning begins with Triggers, the perception of which are influenced or framed by our previous experiences. The learner then progresses through the remaining phases not necessarily in sequential order, but rather as Marsick & Watkins characterize as “an ebb and flow as people begin to make sense of a situation” (2001, p. 29). The new situation is experienced and the learner applies different strategies to examine the situation and devise potential solutions. Once this portion of the cycle is complete, the learner implements the selected solution. Ideally, the learner continues the cycle by reflecting on the selected course of action to evaluate its consequences and identify lessons learned. The first phases of the informal learning model are where the learner is applying his/her meta-learning skills to the new situation. Reflection and evaluation are key components of the middle portion. Then, in the final portion of Marsick & Watkins’ informal learning model, the process concludes with the identification of lessons learned—and therein lies the greatest potential for capturing newly created knowledge so that it can then be shared with and applied by others.

Additional theorists’ contributions.
Building upon Marsick & Watkins’ work, additional theorists have made noteworthy contributions to the study of informal learning. Eraut (2004) has developed and revised a typology of informal learning modes further breaking down informal learning into implicit learning, reactive learning, and deliberative learning—all of which can occur in the past, present, or future. With Marsick acting as their dissertation sponsor, Wallace & Colbert (2001) focused on implementing the theory of informal learning by identifying the factors most important to learning in daily work situations versus in problem solving situations; these factors included talking, perspective sharing, reflection, and trust. They also developed a set of recommendations for how “to structure an organization to support a community of work-learners and…ways to build collaborative work and learning skills” (2001, p. Abstract). Eraut, Alderton, Cole, & Senker (2002) defined and provided examples of informal learning methods, or what the authors termed ‘organized learning support’ that include mentoring and coaching; rotations, visits, and shadowing; and designated experts. They also provided examples of how work group collaboration and learning from outside one’s workgroup can support informal and lifelong learning. Skule (2004) identified seven learning conditions that affect informal learning at work, creating measurable factors that can be used to quantitatively assess workplace informal learning; these factors included exposure to change and high demands, the extent of one’s professional network, feedback, management support for learning, and rewarding proficiency. Clarke (2005) provided empirical evidence of the effect that different aspects of the learning environment have on informal learning in the workplace such as opportunities for independent on-the-job learning, empowerment, and support for reflection and job challenges.

Communities of Practice

The study of CoPs began with predominantly ethnographic studies, progressed through to qualitative studies, and then more recently has expanded into quantitative studies that are attempting to display a link between CoPs and improvements in organizational performance. Wenger is considered by many to be the seminal theorist on CoPs and has published much on the subject. Through an impressive ethnographic study in his dissertation, Wenger (1990) began his investigation into the characteristics of communities and the people and practices that make up those communities. In 1991, Wenger first published on the subject of CoPs. His article introduced the idea of “learning as a social phenomenon… [where] information only takes meaning in the context of the social practices of the communities that give it cultural life… [Furthermore,] through our membership in their communities…we come to know—and be empowered by what we know” (Wenger, 1991, p. 83). This concept was further reinforced in Wenger’s work that year with Lave where they first identified the CoP concept in their “research toward a ‘social theory of learning’” (Zboralski, Salomo, & Gemuendon, 2006, p. 535).

In 1997, Snyder built on Wenger’s and others’ early work by identifying CoPs as a tool for enhancing organizational learning, building organizational competencies, and improving organizational performance. To support this claim, Snyder (1997) argued that “competencies in the current environment are rarely static, so high-performance [CoPs] engage in continuous learning activities to ensure that competencies are built, shared, and applied effectively” (p. 8-9). Furthermore, CoPs:

“…are aligned with competencies…they both enact competencies…and develop and renew competencies through a variety of learning activities. [They] “also constitute influential organization conditions…that influence communication and coordination… [and] are aligned, therefore, with several of the factors associated with a performance-based model of organizational learning.” (Snyder, 1997, p. 9)

Snyder’s most important contribution in his 1997 article was the introduction of a “set of [33] testable hypotheses about how CoPs influence performance, how they learn competence, and what conditions facilitate competence development” (p. 14). These 33 hypotheses can be used to test the interrelation between CoPs and organizational learning, organizational competence, and organizational performance. In fact, this set of hypotheses for testing the interrelation between CoPs and organizational learning, organizational competence, and organizational performance went on to encourage many research efforts including those by Lesser & Prusak; Dove; Lorenz; Smith & McKeen; Webb, Wunram, Lettice & Klein; Lucas; and more.

In 2002, Snyder and Wenger collaborated (along with McDermott) on the writing of the seminal book Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. In it, they introduced seven design principles for CoPs:
1. Design for evolution
2. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives
3. Invite different levels of participation
4. Develop both public and private community spaces
5. Focus on value
6. Combine familiarity and excitement
7. Create a rhythm for the community
(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 51)

This work also led to the creation of Wenger’s quick start-up guide that succinctly presented the major concepts related to CoPs (Wenger, 2002). View image In 2004, Wenger reinforced his earlier proposition of the social nature of knowledge by arguing that “communities of practice [are] the social fabric of knowledge” (p. 1). He further described the three elements of a community of practice (domain, community, and practice) and defined the role of management sponsorship to “enable communities to thrive and have an impact on the performance of the organization” (Wenger, 2004, p. 7).

Knowledge Creation Model

Providing an application for both informal learning and knowledge management, CoPs can be a very effective mechanism for knowledge creation and conversion. As defined by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), knowledge is created through processes by which an individual’s tacit or explicit knowledge is converted through socialization, externalization, combination, or internalization. View image Socialization is the conversion of tacit to tacit knowledge, often involving face-to-face interactions; this is a common method of knowledge conversion seen in informal learning and CoPs. Externalization is the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge, often involving interviews or other methods to capture another’s expertise; this is a common method of knowledge conversion most often seen in formal learning (particularly in the process of instructional designers working with subject matter experts in the creation of learning programs). Combination is the conversion of explicit to explicit knowledge, often involving the synthesis of existing data, information, or knowledge in a new way; this is another common method of knowledge conversion seen in formal learning programs. Internalization is the conversion of explicit to tacit knowledge, often involving ‘learning by doing’ so that the knowledge or skill becomes deeply internalized and rote; this is a common method of knowledge conversion seen in both informal and formal learning through mentoring and apprenticeships. In CoPs, socialization is the primary knowledge conversion mechanism employed, while the others can play supporting roles. For example, if CoPs are taking steps to capture their knowledge, externalization will be an additional source of knowledge conversion.

Next:

We'll explore the applied research that has been conducted on informal learning and knowledge management, as well as communities of practice and knowledge management.

References:
http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/references_knowledge_creation.html

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

Applied Research

Where theoretical works help to define concepts and models, applied research aids in identifying what problems the theory can solve.

Informal Learning and Knowledge Management

Marsick & Watkins.
Beginning with their earliest work, Marsick & Watkins (1990) saw informal learning as a way to access tacit knowledge of which Nonaka & Takeuchi discuss in their knowledge creation model. Marsick & Watkins continued to make this connection in subsequent research, showing how informal learning can help a learning organization tap into its knowledge potential through the use of CoPs, knowledge repositories, goal-based scenarios, and groupware (Marsick & Watkins, 1999; Marsick, 2006).

Eraut.
Eraut strengthened the link between informal learning and tacit knowledge, and identified “several different types of situation[s] in which tacit knowledge may be either acquired or used or simultaneously both acquired and used” (2000, p. 28). Like Marsick (2006), Eraut cited Nonaka & Takeuchi’s (1995) knowledge creation spiral model. In particular, Eraut argued that socialization—the first phase of Nonaka & Takeuchi’s model—is an integral part of the knowledge creation that occurs via informal learning (Eraut, 2000; Eraut et al., 2002). Eraut also defined four practical reasons why an organization would want to make tacit knowledge explicit:
- to improve the quality of a person’s or a team’s performance
- to help to communicate knowledge to another person
- to keep your actions under critical control by linking aspects of performance with more and less desirable outcomes
- to construct artifacts that can assist decision making or reasoning (2000, p. 28)

Eraut (2004) defined work activities that lead to learning via informal learning environments, and emphasized the importance of relationships, social context, and management support and facilitation for successful informal learning in the workplace. In his 2004 research article, Eraut also addressed the role and limitations of tacit knowledge in informal learning. He argues that “tacit knowledge does not arise only from the implicit acquisition of knowledge but also from the implicit processing of knowledge” (Eraut, 2004, p. 253). He also cautions that “tacit knowledge is personal knowledge that may be used uncritically because people either believe it works well for them or lack the time and/or disposition to search for anything better” (Eraut, 2004, p. 253).

Communities of Practice and Knowledge Management

Snyder (1997) referred to the role of early CoP case studies completed by Brown & Gray, Cook & Yanow, Orr, Snyder, and Wenger in demonstrating “that learning occurs most effectively within communities that have developed trust, shared understanding of problems, and a language to communicate new and old solutions” (p. 9). Ever since, CoPs have been identified as an effective knowledge management application in numerous case studies, providing useful examples and best practices for how to design and foster CoPs in organizations. For example, DaimlerChrysler found CoPs “to be an efficient means to achieve business process improvement and manage complexity” by improving the flow and sharing of knowledge throughout the organization (Kannan, Aulbur, & Haas, 2005, p. 138). And New Zealand has used predominantly virtual CoPs as an effective means of encouraging “inter-organizational knowledge networking on a national scale” (Rao, 2005, p. 206; Spence, 2005).

In additional applied research, Choi (2006) examined the potential of CoPs as an alternative learning model for knowledge creation and performance training in corporations; Choi also acknowledged CoPs as a key engine for creating and sharing both tacit and explicit knowledge. Choi (2006) also identified factors that facilitate or encourage CoP activity including “learning motivation and desire for learning, creation of work-related knowledge and sharing of expertise in CoP participation, …trust among members, and the leadership trait of the team leader” (p. 144-145). Later in 2006, Zboralski et al. developed a measurement model to evaluate the CoP constructs of information exchange, networking, network position, knowledge effect, business performance effect, and socialization. Importantly, Zboralski et al. (2006) demonstrated “that CoPs have a close connection and positive direct impact on business performance” (p. 547) by quantitatively proving CoP members with a strong network position due to their involvement in a CoP have a positive effect on the knowledge base, the business performance, and the socialization between staff.

Next:

We'll complete a critical analysis of the literature on informal learning and communities of practice.

References:
http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/references_knowledge_creation.html

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

Critical Analysis

Turning to a critical analysis of the theoretical works and applied research, there have been varied contributions to the body of knowledge.

Informal Learning Literature

Marsick and her colleagues have been prolific contributors on the subjects of informal learning, workplace learning, and learning organizations. Their contributions have been well-informed and grounded in the research that came before them, and they have encouraged further research by other scholars (e.g., Wallace & Colbert). Their communication style is clear and complete, displaying scholarly rigor as well as helpful implication considerations for practitioners. For Marsick and colleagues’ research to be even more compelling, it would be helpful to incorporate quantitative research methods in addition to the qualitative research studies they have been performed. Many organizations look to quantitative studies to prove results; this is a challenge that confronts not only Marsick and colleagues, but all those who study learning and knowledge. Marsick, Watkins, Callahan, & Volpe (2006) themselves acknowledge this limitation in the current research and recommend cross-company and industry studies, “research aimed at learning what works to enhance this type of learning,” as well as research to examine “the impact of new distributed working arrangements (including telecommuting, outsourcing, and use of contingency workers) on informal and incidental learning in workplaces” (p. 799).

Communities of Practice Literature

Turning to a critical analysis of the theoretical works and applied research on CoPs, let us focus on Wenger’s contributions from the theoretical perspective and Zboralski et al.’s contributions from an applied research perspective.

Wenger.
Some strong points of Wenger’s work include his solid work to conceptualize CoPs and emphasize the need for them to be very flexible, organic, and evolving in nature. In addition, his writing is approachable and appealing to readers, with many statements possessing good face validity, e.g., “intuitively, everybody knows what knowledge is. When you have it, you are likely to understand situations and do the right thing; when you don’t, you are in trouble” (Wenger, 2004, p. 1). However, his published work (including the materials cited in this paper) focuses more on the practitioner than the scholar; thus Wenger’s materials are sometimes lacking in scholarly rigor. For example, much of his published work is targeted to practitioners and most of his articles and materials were not published in peer-reviewed journals. Despite this, Wenger’s material has become the seminal work on CoPs.

Wenger’s 2004 article was particularly disappointing. While the “doughnut” analogy for his model may make it feel more accessible to practitioners, he may be doing a disservice to the discipline of knowledge management—made all the worse by the fact that he begins the article stating that the field has had to deal with numerous skeptics and detractors. But then he goes on to state, “I will argue that when it comes to knowledge, management is a doughnut…and noting that the center of the doughnut is empty, I will argue that knowledge management is primarily the business of those who actually make the dough—the practitioners” (Wenger, 2004, p. 1). Again, perhaps this is an approachable analogy, but the light-heartedness of its description may make the reader question if knowledge management is a respectable discipline. Then in looking more closely at the writing of this article, the model is not directly linked to the structure of the paper. Ensuring the article’s structure directly followed the model (e.g., with consistent terminology and labeling of sub-sections) and illustrating all the concepts on the model would have greatly improved the quality and coherence of Wenger’s article and model.

Zboralski et al.
In contrast, Zboralski et al.’s (2006) article was particularly impressive for not only its contribution to quantitatively proving a relationship between CoPs and organizational performance, but also in its thorough scholarly approach. The article begins with a thorough literature review, establishing a strong relation between Zboralski et al.’s research and the existing body of knowledge. However, like most research projects in the social sciences, there were some weaker areas. For example, Zboralski et al.’s sampling is somewhat problematic. Within the selected multinational company, there were 220 CoPs that met the researchers’ criteria; yet over a four month timeframe they were only able to get questionnaire responses representing 36 of those CoPs. The researchers claimed that their coverage of “about 31% of all active community members…can be considered a valid representation of the overall population” (Zboralski et al., 2006, p. 542). However, it is not entirely clear by what objective criteria this claim can be made. The questionnaire for their measurement model was pre-tested, resulting in revisions prior to releasing the questionnaire to the sample population. However, the authors did acknowledge that a common method bias could not be ruled out. In addition, the study is somewhat limited in that it was based on one German multinational company with an extensive number of CoPs, and the measures were based on the CoP members’ perception of the CoPs’ effects on organizational performance. Overall, Zboralski et al.’s conclusions were justified by the results; however, they could be strengthened further by replicating the research with other companies plus comparing the results to the perceptions of non-members of CoPs or to objective performance measures that could not be influenced by the participants’ perception.

Next:

We'll discuss the implications of the research on informal learning, communitiies of practice, organizational learning, and knowledge management and how it can be applied.

References:
http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/references_knowledge_creation.html

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

Discussion

Informal Learning and Communities of Practice

Despite many organizations’ tendency to focus on formalized training, informal learning should not be overlooked for it represents a significant opportunity to create new knowledge. With the knowledge creation and sharing activities that can occur through informal learning channels, this results in significant untapped potential for taking knowledge from an individual level to a work group and even organizational level. By applying the discipline of knowledge management to informal learning, new learnings can be captured, shared, and applied. Thus through Nonaka and Takeuchi’s concept of socialization, informal learning can become a viable gateway to accessing tacit knowledge—and converting it into something that can benefit entire work groups and organizations.

At the same time, CoPs have long been considered an effective application method for sharing and creating individual and organizational knowledge. Recently, researchers are seeing the synergies between informal learning and CoPs. Marsick (2006) argues that “the emerging field of knowledge creation and management provides a framework for understanding how informal learning might be enhanced without divorcing the phenomenon of learning from the work itself” (p. 57)—and CoPs can be an effective tool for making that happen. Marsick et al. (2006) further argue that “three areas that seem particularly important for understanding informal and incidental learning in today’s workplace are tacit/implicit knowing, whole person learning, and communities of practice” (p. 796). De Laat (2006) also links informal learning, knowledge conversion, and CoPs as follows:

Communities not only provide an open learning space where they develop their knowledge domain and practice. It is also a place where community knowledge is kept alive and learning is situated in the activities, context, and culture of the community. (p. 8)

Maki-Komsi, Poyry, & Ropo (2005) argue that participation in CoPs provides the “fabric of learning” for dispersed communities of workers (p. 38). Further, they caution that in order to create knowledge it is critical for communities to “collaboratively pose questions, and intentionally seek for alternative solutions in order to create new knowledge and expand the community’s capabilities” (Maki-Komsi et al., 2005, p. 38).

Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management

In the past decade, more and more researchers and practitioners have begun to acknowledge the potential synergies and interrelationships between knowledge and learning. This is particularly evident in the convergence of the concepts of the learning organization (LO) and knowledge management (KM). Senge (1990/2006) first introduced the concept of the learning organization as a set of core learning capabilities that enable an organization to innovate (i.e., to create new knowledge) and create sustainable advantage. In 1999, Senge shared that he saw KM addressing “the same critical issues [that the Society of Organizational Learning] members have been struggling with—the sustainable creation, transfer, and dissipation of organizational knowledge” (Karlenzig as cited in McElroy, 2003). In studying the areas of organizational forgetting, organizational memory, and how knowledge transfer is a key to creating organizational learning, Argote (1999/2005) posits that “patterns of knowledge creation, retention, and transfer contribute to differences in the rates at which organizations learn” (p. 203). Loermans (2002) defines the relationship between KM and LO by stating that the LO focuses on the learning process and generating new knowledge while KM “takes the output from the LO, manages it and ensures that an appropriate environment to perpetuate the generation and management of knowledge capital is being properly maintained” (p. 292). Loermans (2002) also cites the research of Brown and Woodland, Wikstrom and Norman, and Allee, observing that organizational learning claims “that learning is the process of acquiring knowledge” while KM claims “that each aspect of knowledge has a corresponding learning activity that supports it” (p. 290). McElroy (2003) argues that “second-generation KM [is] a management discipline that focuses on enhancing organizational learning…[and that] KM is an implementation strategy for organizational learning” (p. 19). Mason (2005) also argues that “learning and knowledge have a symbiotic relationship; they depend upon each other” (p. 321).

Implications for Practitioners

So what are the implications of this convergence of the theoretical concepts of informal learning, CoPs, organization learning, and knowledge management for practitioners? Loermans (2002) recommends that “a corporate architecture [be created] to facilitate learning at the organization level and to create knowledge sharing and dissemination mechanisms across the organization” (p. 290). Maki-Komsi et al. (2005) recommend the use of CoPs for geographically dispersed workforces:

Communities of practice, even virtual ones, support the individual professionals in their work by providing not only information and knowledge but also support and a feeling of community with remote peers. Informal learning and information exchange occurs within these communities, and they form a structure supporting everyday work. (p. 52)

Mason (2005) recommends considering the use of e-learning as important “knowledge scaffolding” and that “much of the infrastructure development that supports e-learning [is] convergent with systems developed to support knowledge management” (p. 321) —for example, enterprise knowledge portals and Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS). Furthermore, while “content may have been king at the peak of the dot-com boom, [we now know] that context will always shape its usage” (Mason, 2005, p. 322)—and learning is where context and meaning are formed. In addition, any knowledge and learning initiative must be “designed with...[an] understanding of [how to] sustain online culture...[and an] appreciation that “e” [in e-learning] also stands for engagement” (Mason, 2005, p. 322). Thus people, cultural, and infrastructure considerations must always come first for the success of any knowledge and learning initiative. Additionally, practitioners should consider this final piece of advice from Loermans (2002):

If the discipline of KM operates in such a way as to improve an organization’s learning capability, it therefore improves the capacity for the organization to generate new knowledge and thus systematically expand the knowledge base of the organization. For this cycle to operate effectively, organizational learning and knowledge generation need to be fully integrated into every mission critical business process that the organization is involved in. This is more a cultural than a technological challenge. (p. 292) [Therefore], organizations should focus on the total inter-organization learning process (i.e., the creation of new corporate knowledge from the total environment within which the organization operates) and the nurturing of the cultural environment that supports it and ensures its continuing development. (p. 293)

References:
http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/references_knowledge_creation.html

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com