Proposal Draft

Proposal: Draft #1 Learning Organization Systems Dynamics Modeling: An Exploratory Study Introduction: The concept of “Learning Organization” has been popularized by Peter Senge and his 1990 book, “The Fifth Discipline”. His vision stimulated business and organization theorist to look further in organizational development in terms of “learning”. Since then, the idea of gaining strategic advantage through learning and knowledge has been diversified. Three fields of study are recognized as major fields of research in organizational development; learning organization, organizational learning and knowledge management. All of these fields are believed to have direct effects on organization performance. Many studies have shown some correlations between performance and theoretical practices. The studies know what happened and “what” are the outputs but they cannot explain “how” these theoretical concepts; learning and knowledge, have effects on organizations. Learning Organization (LO), Organizational Learning (OL) and Knowledge Management (KM): The Similarities and Differences Goh’s review (2001) defines the differences between learning organization and organizational learning as both are the same but different from different perspectives. Organizational learning (OL) can be viewed from a “capability” perspective, how capable organization is in learning while learning organization (LO) is an “organization” that has a capability to develop, change and adapt to gain strategic advantage. Kezar’s explanation (2005) approaches OL from another angle, education. OL is rooted deeply into learning process. And in the field of learning, only individuals, not organizations can learn. In OL field, there remains active debate about whether this is an interrelated process between the individual and group level or whether group level can have independent thought and learning. The focus of OL clearly on “learning process” in individual level which is a part of LO’s concepts, therefore OL cannot be separated from LO but, in fact, it’s an important body of knowledge that would support LO in its process. Another closely related field to LO is Knowledge Management (KM). Bennet (2004) explains KM from the basic concept of knowledge based on Sveiby (1997) as “..knowledge is best understood as the capacity to take effective action..”. Another view of KM is Loermans’ literature review on Swann et al (1999) that relates KM and LO in organization context as “.. any process or practice of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and using knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance learning and performance in organizations..” The term “wherever it resides” implies essences of KM; tacit and explicit knowledge which are not in any context of LO. The scope of knowledge and its process in KM clearly distinguish itself from LO concepts. However, Brown and Woodland, from OL school claimed simply that learning is the process of acquiring knowledge while Allee (1997) from KM school suggested that each aspect of knowledge has a corresponding learning activity that supports it. Or on the other hand, knowledge creation is a final result of learning process and conversely, learning occurs when we talk about creating, sharing and using knowledge. It is quite interesting that Davenport, Prusak and Svieby, KM masters, in late 1990, did not mentioned LO or OL in their literature when Peter Senge, in 1990, also did not state the term knowledge in his early LO study while all of these are intertwined and related in both context and process. LO, OL and KM are all focusing in their own domains; organizational change, learning process and managing intellectual assets. These are all important to organizational development therefore the knowledge of and studies in these three fields can be drawn to explore learning organization in broader perspective. In this study, the concepts of LO and its theory will be used as a basis and relevant knowledge of OL and KM will be used as supportive reasoning or theories in the exploration. Disciplines in “The Fifth Disciplines”: Principles of Learning Organization Within Senge’s model (1990), learning organizations use five disciplines in creating learning in organization: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning and system thinking. Most of the disciplines represent ways to overcome threats to learning. “The Fifth Discinpline”, Systems thinking is based on a notion that there is a set of relationships, within and outside organization. These complex relationships and variables or determinants can be described and can lead to awareness, understanding and learning for organization which might be stuck in the misguided mind-set of direct, local, and simple causal relationship. The use of systems thinking is for organization to think and solve problem systematically in all levels of individual, group and organization. Personal mastery is an individual process of learning, being open-minded, taking upon new challenges and learn. This is a driving force of organizational learning as Senge (1990) notes, “From their quest for continual learning (through personal mastery) comes the spirit of the learning organization”. Organization will not learn and evolve if individuals cannot or do not make a commitment to learn and see their lives as a creative journey. Personal mastery links individual performance to organizational performance. Mental models or ways of thinking and seeing things direct people’s behavior. Mental model reflects how individual reacts to change. Positive mental models will be beneficial to learning by individual and group when individual has reflection skills to express how they think and they believe. The

effects of both individual’s metal model and personal mastery will be collectively reflected in “Team Learning” which people learn and work together to achieve the same goals based on their “shared vision”. Shared vision refers to leader’s ability to instill a common purpose, which provide forces and energy for learning. These 5 disciplines provide concepts of how learning can support organization but their framework for research is still vague and the notion of LO has generated tremendous debate. The proponents of LO concept suggest that it “may provide the catalyst which is needed to push forward, in an holistic way, the many strands, ideas, and values with which organizations must now concern themselves” (Ellinger, Yang 2004). Despite the numerous accounts and suggestions that discuss why presumably works, there are few concrete studies exist that clarify how it works in achieving performance improvement. Ellinger (2004) suggests that there are little data supporting the claim that performance improvement is directly related to the adoption of practices associated with LO. Major research challenge is to establish the relationship between characteristics, processes and performance. Along these processes, new measures have to be developed to capture intrinsic characteristics of learning and organizational factors. Existing LO Models: In learning organization research field, there are 3 approaches/models that try to detect and explain LO characteristics and effects; 1) model of competitive learning organization, 2) LO input/output model and 3) DLOQ, dimension of learning organization questionnaire. 1) Hosley, Lau, Levey and Tan (1994) look at business organization and conclude that two important components of competitive learning organization are: the different levels of learning and the learning focus. When the learning focus is linked to the firm’s ability to understand the changing nature of competitive forces and the levels of learning are linked to the firm’s ability to manage and mobilize its resources through time for a given competitive response. These assertions lead to their framework of “model of competitive learning organization”. The model shows the principles of LO based on Senge’s concepts QuickTimeª and a and how they interact. Still, it TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture. lacks of quantitative measures that determine effects of each components and actions. However model provides a dynamic picture of how learning in different domains affects organization’s reactions to the environment. model of competitive learning organization

2) LO input/output model, Blackman (2005) demonstrates using case studies that input/output model of LO based on Shrivastava’s typology of LO (4 perspectives of: adaptation, developing knowledge of action outcome relationship, assumption sharing, and institutional experience) could explain the process of and relationship among activities. The model captures the sequences of actions in LO and with interviews, the study shows the patterns of LO that occur along the process but not the reverse interactions or measurable magnitudes.

Organizational Process Inputs

Learning Organization

Radical New Structures/New Leadership Enable Continuous Monitored Learning Opportunities Personal Mastery

New PeopleCentered Culture Encouraging Challenge Systems Thinking

Outputs Competitive Advantage

Knowledge

Sharing New Mental Models

Information/Knowled ge Generation and Sharing

LO input/output Model

Shared Vision

Transformational Change

3) DLOQ: “Dimension of learning organization questionnaire” was developed in 1996 by Watkins and Marsick. Based of 7 dimensions of LO, DLOQ has gained popularity as a tool to detect LO characteristics in organization. The questionnaire consists of 60 questions with six-choices Likert scale type covering activities in all 3 levels: individual, group and organization.

7 Dimensions of Learning Organization 1-create continuous learning opportunities 2-promote inquiry and dialogue 3-encourage collaboration and team learning 4-establish systems to capture and share learning 5-empower people toward collective vision 6-connect the organization to its environment 7-use leaders who model and support learning

Deficiencies in Existing Studies: These 3 models are only examples of attempts to detect and measures LO’s characteristics and learning. They also include interactions among activities and actions which are essentials to learning process. By defining their own “dimension” and actions or activities that represent LO’s characteristics, these models are useful within their frameworks which is, in fact, sufficient in explaining LO behavior. Besides interaction, what missing in these models is the dynamic dimension of the organization. The term “dynamic” from business dynamics perspective, Sterman (2004). refers to “the understanding of the historical behavior and of the key concepts and variables and what might be their behavior in the future”. The concept of organizational dynamic is intrinsically embedded in original Senge’s (1990) abstract LO model as he states that “..organization concept indicates that organization continuously need to change internally, as well as, adapt to changes they encounter under different circumstances”. As Senge looks at organization as a continuous changing organism, it is essential to understand the past, the present and the future of organization due to LO process and variables. In other word, dynamic dimension in this proposed study is taking time dimension into the model to: 1) Indicate effects of time (delay or duration of activities or actions) on the process of LO 2) Predict or forecast changes based on different circumstances and environments To include time dimension into the study requires an instrument that is not a typical research tool, systems modeling. Similar to economics, the data from the real world is gathered and put into a model or equation, and researcher studies a model and data from different angles to determine and explore relationships, factors or variables of interest. By using the systems dynamics (or business dynamics) approach (Sterman, 2004), it is also possible to model the organization to determine the causal relationships among actions or activities of LO and organizational outcomes or performance. Furthermore, Leadership, Technology and Social Interaction which cannot be clearly defined in other models might be visualized in this systems modeling and the results would be beneficial to researcher in understanding more of interplay among learning factors and environment.

Theoretical Framework: Three theoretical grounding for this research are 1) Watkins and Marsick conceptualization of the LO (2006), DLOQ. Its validity has been tested and there are numerous studies done based on this questionnaire. 2) Sterman’s Business Dydnamics, Modeling Techniques and Concepts Research Questions: - What is LO in the form of Systems Dynamics modeling? - What are measures that determine action-effects relationship in learning organization? - What are the effects of time in each step of organizational learning process? and - Is model able to predict or simulate LO accurately?

Applications and Implications of the Study: - Another perspective of Learning Organization, a Model which can be simulated to explain an interactions among variables - An exploration of different environments and circumstances

References: - Aik,Chong Tek; “The Synergies of the Learning Organization, Visual Factory Management and On-the-Job Training” Performance Improvement. Silver Spring: Aug 2005. Vol. 44, Iss. 7; p. 15 - Albert, Michael. (2006) “Managing Change at HP Lab: Perspectives for Innovation, Knowledge Management and Becoming a Learning Organization”; The Business Review, Cambridge. Hollywood: Vol. 5, Iss. 2; p. 17 - Bennet, Alex; Bennet, David. (2004) “The Partnership between Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management:Handbook on Knowledge Management 1”, Knowledge Matters (p439-455), Springer Science & Business Media, Netherlands - Blackman, Deborah; Henderson, Steven. (2005) “Why learning organisations do not transform” The Learning Organization. Bradford Vol. 12, Iss. 1; p. 42 - Brown, R.B. and Woodland, M.J. (1999), “Managing Knowledge Wisely: a case study in organizational behaviour”, Journal of Applied Management Studies, December - Fry, Brian R; Griswold J Samuel (2003): “Defining and Implementing the Learning Organization: Some Strategic Limitations”, Public Administration Quarterly. Randallstown: Fall 2003. Vol. 27, Iss. 3/4; p. 311 - Gharajedaghi, Jamshid (1999) “Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture”, Elsevier Science - Goh, Swee C. (2001) “The Learning Organization: an Empirical Test of a Normative” International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior (Marcel Dekker), Aug 2001, Vol. 4 Issue 3/4, p329 - Goh, Swee C. (1998) ”Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks” SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075), Spring98, Vol. 63 Issue 2, p15 - Goh, Swee C.(2003) “Improving organizational learning capability: Lessons from two case studies” The Learning Organization. Bradford: 2003. Vol. 10, Iss. 4/5; p. 216 - Hosley, Suzanne Miller, Lau, Agnes T W, Levy, Ferdinand K, Tan, Doreen S K. (1994) “The quest for the competitive learning organization”, Management Decision. London: 1994. Vol. 32, Iss. 6; p. 5 - Kalim Kanwal; Carson Ewart; Cramp, Derek. (2006) “An illustration of whole systems thinking” Health Services Management Research. London: Aug 2006. Vol. 19, Iss. 3; p. 174 - Kezar, Adrianna. (2005) “What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the learning organization” New Directions for Higher Education, Fall 2005 Issue 131, p7-22 - Lähteenmäki, Satu; Toivonen, Jouko; Mattila, Merja (2001). “Critical Aspects of Organizational Learning Research and Proposals for Its Measurement.”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p113 - Lines, Rune. (2005) “How social accounts and participation during change affect organizational learning” Journal of Workplace Learning. Bradford: Vol.17, Iss. 3/4; p. 157 - Loermans, Jozef. (2002). “Synergizing the learning organization and knowledge management” Journal of Knowledge Management. Kempston: Vol. 6, Iss. 3; p. 285 - Mintzberg, Henry; Van Der Heyden, Ludo (2001) “Organigraphs: drawing How Companies Really Work” Harvard Business Review on Organizational Learning, page 139 Harvard Business School Press - Moilanen, Raili. “Diagnosing and measuring learning organizations” The Learning Organization. Bradford: Vol.12, Iss. 1; p. 71 - Murray, Art; Greenes, Kent. (2006) “Building the Enterprise of the Future: a framework for transformation” KM World. Camden: October. Vol. 15, Iss. 9; p. 16 - O'Callaghan Jr., William G. (2004) “Think Like Peter Senge.” School Administrator, Vol. 61 Issue 10, p26-27 - Säde-Pirkko, Nissilä, (2005) “Individual and collective reflection: how to meet the needs of development in teaching” European Journal of Teacher Education, Jun 2005, Vol. 28 Issue 2, p209-219, 11p - Sterman, John D. (2004) “Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World” The McGrawhill Companies, Inc. - Sussman, Dan. (2005) “What HPLOs KNOW” T + D. Alexandria: Aug 2005. Vol. 59, Iss. 8; p. 34 (6 pages) - Trochim, William M.; Cabrera, Derek A.; Milstein, Bobby; Gallagher, Richard S.; Leischow, Scott J.Practical (2006) “Challenges of Systems Thinking and Modeling in Public Health”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96 Issue 3, p538-546 - Watkins, Karen E. ; Marsick, Victoria J. “Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaire: Introduction” http://www.partnersforlearning.com/instructions.html 31October, 2006 - Yang, Baiyin; Watkins, Karen E.; Marsick, Victoria J. (2004) “The Construct of the Learning Organization: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation” Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p31-55