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
