The Organizational Context of Organization Learning

As noted previously, Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011) developed a conception of the organizational context that includes latent and active components. The latent or background context affects learning through its effects on the active components of members, tasks, and tools. The background context determines the organization’s task and the tools available to perform its task.

Organizational Learning Processes

Organizational learning processes are represented by the curved arrows in Fig. 2.1. When knowledge is created from a unit’s own direct experience, the learning sub- process is knowledge creation. When knowledge is developed from the experience of another unit, the learning subprocess is knowledge transfer. Thus, the curved arrow at the bottom of the

Knowledge from Organization Learning

Knowledge is the outcome of learning. Knowledge can manifest itself in changes in cognitions or behavior. The knowledge can be explicit or tacit and difficult-to- articulate. The knowledge includes both knowledge in the sense of a stock and knowing in the sense of a process (Cook & Brown, 1999; Orlikowski, 2002). Knowledge can be

Organizational Knowledge Depreciation

Does knowledge acquired through learning by doing persist through time or does it decay or depreciate? The classic learning curve model described in Chap. 1, which uses cumulative output as the measure of experience, assumes that knowledge acquired through learning persists indefinitely through time. More recent research indicates, however, that this characterization might not

A Case Example of Organizational Forgetting

As noted previously, analyses of organizational learning that use cumulative output as the measure of organizational experience have been found at times to contain large errors. The L-1011 TriStar produced by Lockheed throughout the 1970s and early 1980s is an example of a production program for which predictions based on the classic learning curve

Empirical Evidence of Organizational Forgetting

1. The Shipyard Study Our first empirical study of knowledge depreciation was based on data from the construction of the Liberty Ship during World War II (Fisher, 1949). We learned about these data from Rapping’s (1965) study, in which he found evidence of learn- ing in the shipyards. Rapping’s study provided particularly compelling evidence

Depreciation Rates Vary in Organizational Forgetting

Because the extent to which knowledge depreciated varied across the contexts we have studied, these studies provide grist to develop hypotheses about factors affecting the rate of depreciation in organizations. By far the most rapid depre- ciation was found in the fast food study. One important way in which the fast food franchises differed

Implications of Organizational Forgetting for Practice

The results on knowledge depreciation have important implications for both opera- tional and strategic decisions in organizations. On the operational side, depreciation has important ramifications for forecasting, planning, and scheduling. If knowledge depre- ciates, forecasts based on the conventional learning curve will systematically overesti- mate future productivity. The gap between an organization’s actual and

Sources of Productivity Gains

Many researchers have speculated about factors responsible for the productivity gains observed in organizations with increasing experience. For example, Joskow and Rozanski (1979) discussed the following factors as contributors to the produc- tivity gains observed with increasing experience: routinization of tasks, more efficient production control, improved equipment design, and improved routing and material handling.

Organizational Memory: Repositories of Organizational Knowledge

How do these examples of sources of productivity gains relate to more theoretical discussions of organizational memory or of where knowledge is embedded in orga- nizations? Stein (1995) defined organizational memory as the means by which knowledge from the past is brought to bear on present organizational activities. According to Stein (1995), “memory is

Organizational Memory: Consequences of Where Knowledge Is Embedded

Although empirical work on organizational learning and memory has increased in recent years (Miner & Mezias, 1996), there is little empirical evidence about the consequences of where knowledge is embedded for aspects of organizational per- formance. We are just beginning to understand the effect of organizational memory on organizational outcomes. An empirical study that

Definitions of Group Learning

What is a group? Guzzo and Dickson (1996) defined a group as “made up of indi- viduals who see themselves and who are seen by others as a social entity, who are interdependent because of the tasks they perform as members of a group, who are embedded in one or more larger social systems

Why Study Group Learning?

Research on group learning is relevant for understanding organizational learning for two reasons. First, groups are increasingly being used as a form of organizing— both in the executive suite (Ancona & Nadler, 1989) and on the factory floor (Hoerr, 1989). Understanding how groups learn helps us understand how the organizations they constitute learn. The

Processes of Group Learning

Groups develop knowledge through several processes. Groups can elicit or share knowledge that one of their members already possesses or generate new knowledge through collaboration and interaction. Another process of group learning involves a “weighting” or evaluating of information that has been shared or generated. This involves influence attempts on the part of those

Limits of Group Learning

The general pattern found on a variety of tasks is one of groups being superior to individuals (certainly the “average” individual, and sometimes even the “best” indi- vidual—see Reagan-Cirincione, 1994; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997) and of groups improving with experience. Groups are better than individuals on recall (Hinsz, 1990) and induction tasks (Laughlin &

Mechanisms of Knowledge Transfer in Organizations

When knowledge acquired in one organization affects another (either positively or negatively), transfer of knowledge occurs (Argote & Ingram, 2000). A long tradition of research in psychology examines whether individuals are able to transfer knowl- edge from one situation or task to another (e.g., see Thompson, 1998). This work examines whether experience with one

Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: The Franchise Study

Our primary goal in the franchise study (Darr, Argote, & Epple, 1995) was to assess the extent to which knowledge transferred across organizations. That is, we wanted to examine whether one organization learned or benefited from experience at another. A secondary goal for the franchise study was to determine the extent to which knowledge

Levels of Knowledge Transfer in Organizations

Knowledge transfer in organizations has been studied at different levels of analysis. This section provides an overview of whether knowledge has been found to transfer at these different levels. Subsequent sections identify the conditions under which knowledge transfer is most likely to occur. Several researchers have examined whether knowledge transfer occurs across products or

Related Research of Knowledge Transfer in Organizations

Although interest in how one organization transfers knowledge to another is rela- tively new, considerable work has been done in the past on related topics. For example, work has been done on “transfer of training.” This work examines how to design training programs to increase the likelihood that participants transfer skills acquired in the

Conditions that Facilitate or Impede Knowledge Transfer in Organizations

This section identifies the conditions under which knowledge transfers across orga- nizational units. That is, the section identifies the conditions under which experi- ence in one organization affects another. The section is organized into examining how knowledge transfer is affected by characteristics of the relationship among the organizations, characteristics of the organizational context, features