Innovative Knowledge Management

Innovative Knowledge Management:

Concepts for Organizational Creativity and Collaborative Design Alan Eardley Staffordshire University, UK Lorna Uden Staffordshire University, UK

Information science reference Hershey • New York

Director of Editorial Content: Director of Book Publications: Acquisitions Editor: Development Editor: Publishing Assistant: Typesetter: Production Editor: Cover Design:

Kristin Klinger Julia Mosemann Lindsay Johnston Christine Bufton Casey Conapitski Casey Conapitski Jamie Snavely Lisa Tosheff

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2011 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Innovative knowledge management : concepts for organizational creativity and collaborative design / Alan Eardley and Lorna Uden, editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: "This book provides a valuable resource for promoting current academic discourse on innovation in knowledge-intensive organizations and contexts"--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-60566-701-0 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-702-7 (ebook) 1. Knowledge management. 2. Creative ability in business. 3. Technological innovations. I. Eardley, Alan. II. Uden, Lorna, 1946HD30.2.I5365 2011 658.4'038--dc22 2010041635

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

1

Chapter 1

Universities as KnowledgeIntensive Learning Organizations Constantin Bratianu Academy of Economic Studies, Romania

ABSTRACT The purpose of this chapter is to critically analyze the universities as knowledge intensive learning organizations. It is axiomatic that universities are knowledge organizations since by their own nature universities create, acquire, and transfer knowledge in complex ways. They are knowledge intensive organizations since the density of knowledge field and the dynamics of knowledge processing are much greater than many other organizations. Since learning is one of the major processes within any university, people may consider universities as being by definition learning organizations. This idea induced by a semantic halo effect may lead to a major error. Although a university is an organization based on learning processes, it is not necessary a learning organization. This paper performs a functional analysis of the specific knowledge processes in order to identify the necessary conditions for a generic university to become a learning organization.

INTRODUCTION Universities are among the oldest institutions in Europe, solving creatively the paradox of continuity for many centuries. The paradox is generated by the mission of the university which integrates conflicting tasks ranging from knowledge preservation to knowledge creation: ‘Their survival, often in the same locations, even in the DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-701-0.ch001

same buildings, with many of the same activities, may on one level be proof of their conservatism. I believe that on another level it is also proof of the ability of the university to anticipate, to generate or incorporate new knowledge and new ways of thinking – sometimes hesitantly, sometimes slowly, but always with its essential intellectual values and mission intact’(Mayor, 1997, p. 143). Based on a minimum set of functional characteristics, experts in the history of higher education consider the first European universities those cre-

Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Universities as Knowledge-Intensive Learning Organizations

ated in Bologna, Paris and Montpellier, followed by those developed at Oxford and Salamanca (Rüegg, 2004). The venerable Bologna University dates from 1088, and the famous Oxford University dates from 1187. However, the mission and the functional matrix of those initial institutions of higher education differ considerably from the present day universities. Main activities associated with these universities were collecting knowledge, preserving it and transfer it to the new generations of students. Knowledge generation was not a part of their mission. A professor was mostly a scholar and not a researcher. Knowledge was considered as a complete set of concepts and ideas about the world, and it was quite static in time. Thus, the purpose of professors was only to transfer this knowledge body to the students. We may say that these first institutions have been designed to acquire and process knowledge, and to deliver value for society in terms of mental representations. The second generation of universities have been established mostly by religious and political powers aiming at developing professional elites to serve their social institutions (Harayama, 1997; Jongbloed et al., 1999). Their main functional structures were designed for professional oriented knowledge processing. In 1810, the University of Berlin was founded on a new paradigm developed by Wilhelm von Humboldt. In this new perspective, a university should approach knowledge scientifically (Gibbons, 1997; Marga, 2005; Mehallis, 1997). It should produce knowledge, not re-produce it. ‘According to Humboldt’s conception, research progress contributes to the elaboration of a system of values that has an influence beyond the walls of academic institutions.’(Harayama, 1997, p. 9). The new Humboldtian paradigm is founded on the unity and the complementary role of teaching and research functions: ‘The subjects to be taught are composed not only of already consolidated knowledge, but also of those elements that remain to be discovered. Therefore, the teaching

2

and learning process through the activities of research.’(Harayama, 1997, p. 13). Knowledge generation proved to be a natural constituent of the modern university, its contribution being taken into account in any evaluation metric and any system of ranking universities (Aguillo, Ortega & Fernandez, 2008; Cheng & Liu, 2008). Thus, we may say that universities are entities dedicated to create, preserve and transfer knowledge. Some authors discuss now about a third mission of the university which is that of creating services for society. This is a rather debatable issue since: ‘There is a part of the academic community that is already processing the first academic revolution, i.e. the evolution from teaching to research. Similar resistances found in the first revolution appeared over the last thirty years during the process of applying the second revolution: from teaching and research to services.’(Montesinos et al., 2008, p. 259). The mission of the university, as resulted from its historical evolution, is to create, preserve and transfer knowledge to students and to society. Since all of these mission components involve knowledge creation and knowledge transformation processes, the university is a knowledge intensive organization. Also, universities are by their nature learning based organizations. They deliver knowledge to the students through teaching processes. Students acquire knowledge through learning processes, from their professors and from other different knowledge resources. Since learning is a fundamental process within any university, people may consider universities as being learning organizations. This would be a major mistake, since the transition from individual to collective learning and from collective to organizational learning requires some critical functional conditions that are not fulfilled by most of the universities. The purpose of this chapter is to critically asses and analyse the functional processes within a generic university, and then to


develop a theoretical investigation concerning the necessary conditions for such a university to become a learning organization. The chapter will be structured as follows: (1) conceptual background; (2) functional analysis of the knowledge processes within a university; (3) university management and leadership; (4) future research directions; (5) conclusion.

BACKGROUND It is an axiom that a university is a knowledge organization. Knowledge is the basic resource used by professors and the main outcome used by students. However, it is extremely difficult to show and to measure knowledge as an outcome since it is intangible and it can be found in the mind of students. Knowledge is the result of processing information and other knowledge forms. Since it is a concept with a complex semantic, it is difficult to be defined. Some authors prefer to work with operational definitions, which are good enough to be used, but remain fuzzy and incomplete. One of the mostly used one is the following: ‘Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the mind of knower. In organization, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories, but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms.’ (Davenport & Prusak, 2000, p. 5). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) prefer to discuss about explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge ‘can be articulated in formal language including grammatical statements, mathematical expressions, specifications, manuals and so forth’ (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. VIII). Tacit knowledge ‘is personal knowledge embedded in individual experience and involves intangible

factors such as personal belief, perspective, and the value system’ (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. VIII). Japanese companies have a different view of knowledge by comparison with the western companies. For the Japanese companies explicit knowledge plays a minor role in the organizational life being only the visible part of an iceberg. The major role is played by the tacit knowledge which is highly personal and hard to formalise: ‘Subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches fall into this category of knowledge. Furthermore, tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in an individual’s action and experiences, as well as in the ideals, values, or emotions he or she embraces.’(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 8). It is interesting to remark the fact that knowledge in the western perspective is mostly rational knowledge, while in the eastern perspective knowledge means both rational and emotional knowledge (Baumard, 1999; Debowski, 2006; Eucker, 2007; McElroy, 2003; Styhre, 2004). Some other authors prefer to work with metaphors. They use metaphors in order to give meaning to knowledge (Andriessen, 2008; 2006; Bratianu, 2008a). Metaphors are mental models (Senge, 1990) people use in order to better understand the real world. They are cognitive approximations developed throughout our education in family, schools, community, church and university (Bratianu, 2007a). A metaphor is not just a semantic similarity between two concepts, but an instrument to develop a new cognitive approximation using a well known concept. It helps in providing a perspective for the new concept, emphasizing certain key characteristics and ignoring others. The known concept is considered the semantic source domain, and the knowledge concept is considered the semantic target domain. It is of interest to mention the fact that in the West dominant metaphors of knowledge are based on the idea of knowledge as stuff. In the East dominant metaphors of knowledge are based on the idea of knowledge as feelings. Organizational knowledge is like a field of forces, highly nonlinear and strongly dynamic

3


(Bratianu & Andriessen, 2008). Any variation of this field generates fluxes or flows, and these fluxes generate processes. When such a process yields a new knowledge configuration leading to a better understanding and decision making, we consider it a learning process. At the individual level, learning produces mental events (Naeve, Sicilia & Lytras, 2008) and relatively permanent changes in the behavioural potential (Maier, Prange & Rosenstiel, 2003) in a given context. Lytras and Pouloudi (2006) frame their research in terms of a learning flow, which ‘corresponds to the archetype of human behaviour that through action and feedback promotes the understanding and adoption to the environment. The contextual character of learning is of critical importance’(p. 67). Individual learning incorporates analysis, decision making, knowledge structuring and storing, action and reflection. It is a highly nonlinear and dynamic process (Baron, 2000; Bratianu & Murakawa, 2004; Senge, 1990; Sternberg, 2005; Vance et al, 2007). Organizational learning has been conceived as a collective process done by integrating all individual constituents and changing the individual pattern of behaviour to an organizational one. Integration is a highly nonlinear process which aggregates individual contributions based on their restructuring flexibility, and synergy generation. Argyris and Schon (1978; 1991; 1996) developed a multi-dimensional analysis of organizational learning known as single and double loop models. They consider that organizations learn through the agency of individual members, by aggregating nonlinearly their contributions. In the single loop model of learning, outcomes are continuously checked against some reference parameters, and errors will be corrected through the feedback action. This is a continuous improvement process which greatly contributed to the TQM success (Hedberg & Wolf, 2003; Oakland, 2003). In the double loop model of learning, the governing vari-

4

ables can be changed, which means a deeper level of transformation. According to Argyris (1999), ‘Governing variables are the preferred states that individuals strive to satisfy when they are acting. These governing variables are not the underlying beliefs or values people espouse. They are variable that can be inferred, by observing the actions of individuals acting as agents for the organization, to drive and guide their actions.’ (p. 68). From organizational learning researchers directed their investigation efforts and imagination toward learning organization. These two concepts should not be used interchangeably since they represent different semantic entities. Organizational learning means activities and processes of learning in the organization, while learning organization refers to a certain type of organizations (Ortenblad, 2001). According to Senge (1990), the basic meaning of a learning organization is: ‘an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future. For such an organization, it is not enough merely to survive’ (p. 14). Senge distinguishes between adaptive and generative learning. Adaptive learning is for survival and quality improvement. It is a reactive process stimulated by the external environment dynamics. Generative learning is stimulated by the internal environment dynamics, and it is concerned mainly with developing new perspectives, options, and exploring new possibilities for future structuring. Reinterpreting the learning organization, Stewart (2001) considers that Senge’s theory received a large attention from the business environment since it embraces ‘many of the vital qualities for today’s organisations, i.e. teamwork, empowerment, participation, flexibility and responsiveness’ (p. 143). Organizational learning can be greatly enhanced if the university develop a significant absorptive capacity, defined by Cohen and Levinthal (1990) as being: ‘the ability of a firm to recognize


the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends’ (p. 128). For a generic university, these commercial ends can be substituted with its mission objectives. The absorptive capacity is the ability to exploit external knowledge, as an open system with respect to the knowledge field and well defined mechanisms for integrating internally and externally knowledge generation. Thus, prior related knowledge constitutes a functional prerequisite to recognize the value of new knowledge, assimilate it, and use it in the framework established by the university vision and mission. This concept of absorptive capacity can be best understood and developed through an examination of the functional structure of the knowledge processes, which will be discussed in the next section. Also, this concept is closely related to other two concepts: dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000), and corporate universities (Meisner, 1998; Stumpf, 1998) which will be addressed in the next sections of the present chapter. The semantic halo effect of the learning processes within a university makes people think that universities are learning organizations. This is not the case with many of them due to some organizational learning barriers. Actually, a paradox might be formulated from this perspective: ‘Although a university is an organization based on learning processes, it is not necessary a learning organization’ (Bratianu, 2007b). A given university can become a learning organization if and only if there is at least a strong integrator to assure the transition from individual learning to team and organizational learning. Also, it would be important to advance from adaptive to generative learning. Most universities are far away from being learning organizations due to some mental and functional barriers. Identifying and evaluating these barriers would help in designing adequate solutions to transform these universities in successful learning organizations, able to compete on the new global market of higher education.

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES The core competences for a generic university are: teaching and learning, performing research, and performing service to society. The degree to which each of these core competences is developed differs from one university to another, according to its mission, its structure, its management and its capacity to compete. Some universities concentrate their energies on developing only teaching programs, others develop teaching and research programs, and the world class universities focus on research through their doctoral programs and research grants (Shattock, 2003). The functional structure of a generic university is illustrated in Figure 1. Teaching and learning activities for students are structured into universities programs at the level of Bachelor and Master. Doctoral programs integrate both learning and research activities. These universities programs are organized under the authority of schools or faculties, according to the existing legislation. In Europe, the Bologna process developed in the last ten years contributed essentially to a new structure of the higher education process in many countries: Bachelor program, Master program and Doctoral program. Although there are some differences in the periods of time needed to successfully accomplished each of this program in different countries, this new functional structure became the main characteristic of the continental European universities. Bachelor and Master programs are mainly based on knowledge transfer processes, while the doctoral program is based mainly on knowledge generation through research. In Table 1 there is a matrix presentation of all types of knowledge processes associated to university programs, and the university management. They are not clear cut entities and their names might have some overlapping meanings. However, they represent the main manifestations of the organizational knowledge field, and we have to understand them in order to analyse the learn-

5


Figure 1. Functional structure of knowledge processes

ing competencies of the university. It is also important to remark the fact that many authors ignore the management contribution to the knowledge dynamics within a university, although this management plays the fundamental role in developing the university as an intensive knowledge learning organization.

journals, research reports, video conferences etc. It is a conscious and oriented managerial process to buy or to get through exchange new knowledge from the external knowledge environment. In this category enter also new links to virtual libraries of other universities and research centres, as well as open access to internet knowledge portals. All major publishing houses and professional associations editing scientific journals have created huge data bases from which universities may perform any particular forms of acquisitions. In learning organizations this type of knowledge process is conceived at the organizational level, and run by

Knowledge Acquisition This is a generic process aiming at developing the organizational knowledge field through embedded knowledge in books, software programs, scientific Table 1. Knowledge processes at organizational level Knowledge processes Acquisition

Bachelor program

Master program

x

x

Socialization

x

x

Externalization

x

Combination Internalization

Doctoral program

Research program

Management

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Dissemination

x

x

x

x

x

Storage

x

x

x

x

x

Retrieval

x

x

x

x

x

Generation

6

x


professional knowledge managers. In non-learning organizations this knowledge process is still conceived and run at individual level, with low efficiency and decreased motivation. Acquisition is ultimately an intelligent investment with long term benefits. It is strongly related to the absorptive capacity of the university which refers not only to the acquisition or assimilation of information by an organization but also to the organization’s ability to exploit it. This organizational absorptive capacity depends on the absorptive capacities of its individual members, but it is not, however, simply the sum of them (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Being a highly nonlinear process, many managers just cannot understand how to equate short term costs with long term benefits, and how to stimulate students, professors and researchers to navigate into these new learning environments of exceptional values. As a consequence, they are not able to find the necessary financial resources in order to increase the acquisition role in developing the learning university.

Knowledge Generation There are several categories of knowledge generation processes, ranging from restructuring knowledge to creating new knowledge. Since Nonaka (1991; 1994), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), and Nonaka and Konno (1998) developed a series of theories concerning knowledge creation based on reciprocal transformations of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, and their transfer in a social environment, this process of knowledge generation refers mostly to research outcomes. Scientific discoveries and innovations in all fields of activities resulted from an organizational structure of the university, as a specific outcome of the research projects constitute important contributions to the knowledge universe. World class universities are those universities able to bring important contributions to the progress of science and technology through major results obtained in research activities, published in the main stream of scientific journals. World class universities are

intensive knowledge learning organizations since they generate knowledge more than any other kind of organizations. Their knowledge management played the major role in developing such a perspective and in making continuous and significant investments in strengthening knowledge generation as a core competence able to produce a sustainable competitive advantage. Knowledge generation and its embedding into published papers in the most prestigious scientific journals constitute the main criteria for universities rankings. For instance, the famous ‘Shanghai ranking’ of the world universities performed by the Institute of Higher Education of Shanghai Jiao Tong University is based on the following indicators: (1) Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10%); (2) Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20%); (3) Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories (20%); (4) Articles published in Nature and Science (20%); (5) Articles in Science Citation Index-expanded, Social Science Citation Index (20%); (6) Academic performance with respect to the size of an institution (10%), (http://www.arwu.org/rank/2007/ARWU2007_ Top100.htm). These indicators may discourage at first glance any attempt of relating knowledge generation to learning organization and the significance of world class universities. However, if we consider the simple fact that winning a Nobel Prize by any professor means years of research at organizational level, best equipped laboratories, tradition and a special organizational culture able to stimulate young researchers and doctoral students for performance, then we conclude that such indicators measure the knowledge generation competence of the university. Research universities have developed strong doctoral programs and their knowledge management demonstrated a successful leadership. Just to have an idea of what means to be a world class university we present in Table 2 the first ten universities ranked by the Institute of Higher Education of Shanghai Jiao Tong University for 2007.

7


Socialization According to Nonaka, Toyama and Byosiere (2003) ‘Socialization is the process of bringing together tacit knowledge through shared experiences’(p. 495). Since tacit knowledge is context dependent and very difficult to express, the key to socialization is to share the same experience through joint activities. Socialization is strongly linked with the cooperation and team working, values which are specific for Japanese education (Ohmae, 1982). In Western cultures is encouraged individual work and competition between individuals, which means a reduced level of socialization. Considering the type of programs shown in Table 1, is easy to understand that Bachelor and Master Programs have little socialization in their structure, with the exception of those fields of knowledge where internship programs are developed. For instance, in the medical education internship programs in hospitals are contributing to sharing tacit knowledge. By contrast to them, individual homework developed in American universities reduces drastically the socialization process. Learning universities, like learning companies, must find new ways of developing socialization as a part of university education. Socialization is

difficult to manage because it is the conversion of tacit knowledge. It is necessary to cultivate the cultural values of trust, friendship, care and love in order to overcome more easily the individualism barriers. Then, the knowledge management must design learning activities for groups of students, and for internship modules. Only transcending individual boundaries socialization can be effective in tacit knowledge transfer.

Externalization Externalization means to extract valuable parts of the tacit knowledge and to express them into a rational form, easy to be transferred and understood by other individuals. Externalization is a pure individual process and it is the key element for knowledge creation. ‘When tacit knowledge is made explicit, knowledge becomes crystallized, at which point it can be shared by others and can be made the basis for new knowledge’(Nonaka, Toyama & Byosiere, 2003, p. 495). The success of externalization comes from an efficient use of metaphors, analogies and models. Metaphors help understanding new concepts intuitively by using semantic domains of known concepts. They are able to connect concepts which apparently are

Table 2. The top ten world universities for 2007 (http://www.arwu.org/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100. htm, retrieved on 29 October 2008) Institution

World rank

8

Country

National rank

1

Harvard University

USA

1

2

Stanford University

USA

2

3

University of California at Berkeley

USA

3

4

Cambridge University

UK

1

5

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

USA

4

6

California Institute of Technology

USA

5

7

Columbia University

USA

6

8

Princeton University

USA

7

9

University of Chicago

USA

8

10

Oxford University

UK

2


uncorrelated, and to highlight some common features which can then be further clarified by using analogies. These analogies help one understand the unknown through the known, and yield a link between an image and a rational model. Modelling and simulation are very useful teaching instruments in the learning environment. In universities, externalization processes are extremely important for researchers to formulate their results and to interpret them in new perspectives. Thus, externalization plays an important role especially in doctoral programs, where research is essential and individual experience of students is not so large. Also, in teaching activities associated to Bachelor and Master programs externalization is an important process for those professors who have a rich experience in the discipline field, and who can use it for teaching. Unlike undergraduate students, those attending MBA or EMBA programs have already a great deal of professional experience. For them, the structure of the program must contain more activities adequate to promoting externalization activities. However, in order to develop this process as an organizational capability, and to make use of all the tacit knowledge in the university it is necessary to stimulate continuously people to make the effort of self-analysis and self-interrogation. The university becomes a learning organization if its knowledge management understands the importance and the benefits of encouraging externalization in all academic areas and research activities.

Combination Combination is a process by which discrete pieces of knowledge are aggregated into a set of rational knowledge, and then transfer to some other people. The aggregated product may be considered as a new organizational knowledge. For example, let us consider the annual report of the university. It is the practical result of integrating knowledge

coming from each department and school, and then interpreted at the organizational level. This report is written, distributed to all stakeholders and discussed. The knowledge contained into this report has been obtained through the combination of different components, and it brings new knowledge about the university successes in the past year. Creative use of computerized communication networks and large scale databases can improve this combination process. From learning perspective, combination is a pivotal process since all the knowledge transfer from professors toward students is realized through it. In the Nonaka knowledge cycle combination is the only rational and explicit process having a social dimension. Socialization, on the other hand is a non-rational and implicit process having a social dimension. Learning universities develop combination by replacing the classical professor – students transfer process with creating learning environments where students are active knowledge agents. Learning universities break down the virtual walls between classical disciplines and invite professors, researchers and students to an inter- and multidisciplinary approach. It is known that knowledge variety is stimulating creation of new knowledge, and that combination is used in all intensive creativity activities like focus groups and brainstorming. Knowledge management in such a learning university will find always ways to stimulate combination through networking, e-learning and virtual campuses. Combination increases the knowledge entropy and stability of the system through dissemination, and stimulates organizational innovation at all levels. Combination integrates formal and informal communicating networks, and contributes to improving the decision making process. Combination can be used a vehicle process in problem-based learning, to increase students contribution to the learning process and to develop their critical thinking (Eardley & Uden, 2008).

9


Internalization This is the final process in the Nonaka knowledge cycle. Internalization means transforming explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge at the individual level. According to Nonaka, Toyama & Byosiere (2003) ‘Internalization is the process of embodying explicit knowledge as tacit knowledge. It is closely related to learning-by-doing’ (p. 497). From a practical point of view, internalization contains two aspects. First, explicit knowledge is embodied in action and actualizes concepts about strategy, innovation, or improvement (i.e. training programs for employees). Second, explicit knowledge can be embodied through simulations or experiments in order to stimulate learning-by-doing mechanisms. In classical teaching of the non-learning universities internalization is assumed by professors, such that there is no organizational effort of stimulating and improving it. Knowledge management in the learning universities uses motivation as a leverage mechanism, and de-construct all bottlenecks by implementing high speed knowledge fluxes and user friendly systems. It is important to stress the fact that internalization is a highly nonlinear and personal process. It can be improved only by creating an adequate motivational field and stimulating individual innovation. Considering the overall perspective of the Nonaka cycle, ‘Knowledge is created through a continuous and dynamic interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. This interaction is shaped through the SECI process, that is, through the shifts from one mode of knowledge conversion to the next: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization’(Nonaka, Toyama & Byosiere, 2003, p. 497). This ‘Nonaka cycle’ is not confined to a certain organizational level. It is produced from individual to group and organizational levels, and from a very simple configuration to a very large complexity of the social environment. Learning universities must analyse their knowledge cycles

10

and develop strategies to increase the speed and densities of all knowledge fluxes.

Dissemination Dissemination might be considered identical with knowledge transfer. However, it can be distinguished from it since it is an asynchronous and unidirectional process. Dissemination is done using different media systems, from virtual books to web pages. Knowledge is posted for potential consumers, but there is no certain end user. Thus, we speak about dissemination as a specific knowledge transfer from a higher level to a lower level of understanding, when the end users are not synchronous receivers with the knowledge disseminator. This type of processes is frequently used in e-learning, online learning and virtual campuses. Learning universities are aware of these new opportunities and use dissemination for all categories of learners from inside and outside of the university. Dissemination became an important knowledge process in the third mission of the university, i.e. performing service to the community. Dissemination assumes a high level of transparency, new mechanisms for validating the knowledge sources, and improved semantic webs.

Storage and Retrieval Storage is an organizational process by which knowledge can be deposited in a structured way, such that retrieval can be done efficiently. In a classical campus, storage could have been done by organizing library spaces for books and scientific journals. In the new university campuses storage means using intelligently computer facilities and advanced software programs for knowledge retrieval and data mining. These processes become more important for the virtual universities, which should incorporate the features of the learning organizations.


LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS Beyond the debate between individual learning and organizational learning (Argyris, 1999; Dierkes et al., 2001; Senge, 1990), empirical and theoretical research demonstrated the existence of learning organizations. They are ‘organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspirations is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together’ (Senge, 1990, p.3). Learning occurs when the organization is able to construct solutions for new problems, or within new environments. Learning organizations have complex and dynamic functional structures able to display two learning loops: a first loop characterized by feedback, and a second loop characterized by feedforward. The first loop is important for connecting outputs to inputs, in order to eliminate any mismatch between the actual product and the target product. Feedback is necessary for production control and its adjustment. However, single loop learning is effective especially in static environments. For dynamic environments and turbulent changes, single loop learning is not enough anymore. A second loop is necessary for changing the system settings and to create conditions for organizational adaptation to the new environment requirements. For an university, the theory of single loop learning emphasizes the production process, which means the levels of individual and group learning incorporated in the Bachelor, Master and Doctoral programs. Improvements can be obtained through individual efforts and an efficient quality management at the organizational levels. However, single loop learning is based only on feedback effects and it aims to improve knowledge processes by corrections with respect to some standard values or norms. Thus, the results of single-loop learning are limited by the level of these standards. Also, single loop learning entails the development of the organization dynamic capabilities (Eisen-

hardt & Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997). These dynamic capabilities consist of specific strategic and operational processes that create value for organizations within dynamic external business environment by manipulating efficiently tangible and intangible resources. Dynamic capabilities can be defined as: ‘The firm’s processes that use resources – specifically the processes to integrate, reconfigure, gain and release resources – to match and even create market change. Dynamic capabilities thus are the organizational and strategic routines by which firms achieve new resource configuration as markets emerge, collide, split, evolve, and die.’(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, p. 1107). Actually, these dynamic capabilities enable the organization to achieve a dynamic equilibrium between the internal field of forces and the external field of forces. They emphasize the key role of strategic management in ‘appropriately adapting, integrating, and reconfiguring internal and external organizational skills, resources, and functional competences to match the requirement of a changing environment’ (Teece et al., 1997, p. 515). The theory of double loop learning emphasizes the importance of the management process, and of the organizational culture. Values and standards are formulated by the top management, and they can be changed only through a conscious process of knowledge management. This is a powerful integrator, especially in a university where the production process is mainly a learning process (Bratianu, 2008a). According to Bratianu, Jianu & Vasilache (2007), ‘An integrator is a powerful field of forces capable of combining two or more elements into a new entity, based on interdependence and synergy. These elements may have a physical or virtual nature, and they must posses the capacity of interacting in a controlled way’. The interdependence property is necessary for combining all elements into a system. The

11


synergy property makes it possible to generate an extra energy or power from the working system. It makes the difference between a linear and a nonlinear system. A learning university must have its management as a powerful integrator of all professors and students, able to learn itself and to contribute to the synergy of the whole system. Unfortunately, in many European universities where the top management members are elected professors, based on democratic procedures, there are very few chances to have real managers. They might be excellent researchers and professors, yet not having any managerial experience and talent. It is only the halo effect that a good professor should be in the same time a good manager. Actually, this halo effect has been used consciously in the former socialist countries, where the political regime had no interests in choosing those professors with managerial abilities (Bratianu, 2008b). These professors acting like deans and rectors were passive managers since all the decisions have been taken in a strongly centralized way at the level of Ministry of Education. For these managers conforming to the ministerial decisions has always been the law, while learning could trigger penalties. Conforming processes are generated by the inertial organizational forces and the influence of the external forces. These external forces represent cultural values, legislation, social an economical developments, education and technology, as well as a given political ideology. The most explicit forces are represented by the specific legislation in education. This legislation establishes how much autonomy a university has in performing its mission to society. For instance, in the former socialist countries the legislation gave no autonomy to universities. Their management had only to apply at the organizational level decisions coming from the Ministry of Education. After the political regime change, universities received in a progressive way some degree of liberty and academic autonomy. That means that the university management can decide upon the curriculum structure and content, specific

12

admission and graduation procedures, selecting and promoting faculty staff, as well as electing by democratic votes their representatives for different managerial positions. Although we have to acknowledge a lot of improvements by comparison with the former political regime, the real decision making process is bounded by financial means which are almost completely in the power of the governmental forces. From this point of view, conforming is much safer then learning and many rectors operate in the domain of strictly applying the imposed regulations without any effort oriented toward changing them (see Figure 2). These universities cannot be considered learning organizations, even if there are some innovations done at the level of individuals or groups of students and professors. These innovations will fit the single loop learning model. In order that a university to become a learning organization is necessary that the innovative forces which are the driving forces of change to be larger than the inertial forces, i.e. the learning component to be greater than the conforming component of the management vector. European universities are in a powerful field of external inertial forces, especially due to their traditions and to their integration into national higher education systems. For instance, the Humboldtian university linked the university to the State, since its mission was to develop professionals for the German State needs (Gare, 2005). That is why these universities will not have full autonomy while receiving financial support from the states, and thus their management learning component will not overcome easily the conformity component. ‘Universities are so linked to their countries that the examination of their governance structures cannot leave aside the governance structures of national higher education systems. Apart from particular characteristics, in fact, throughout Europe, universities are steered and coordinated by central states, directly or through the national


Figure 2. An illustration of the competing learning and conforming processes

university system. That is why we can say that university governaqnce refers both to the single institution and to the national higher education system.’(Lazzaretti & Tavoletti, 2006). Exceptions come from the traditional English universities which subscribed to the principle of ownership of individual institutions rather than to the incorporation of universities into their national systems. Their management vector enters the learning zone, and there is no surprise why these universities developed so earlier the strategic management by comparison with the French and German universities. The learning university must change its governance structure and reduce its governmental conformity component of the management. This change can be done by a radical reform of corporatization of national universities, and develop a governance based on leadership and competitiveness. This reforming happened in Japan starting on April 1st 2004 (Bratianu, 2004). The main idea of this reform is to replace the democratic election system of managerial functions by a corporate selection procedure based on personal competence and visionary leadership, and to substitute the former academic decision making with a corporate like decision making. Thus, universities get more autonomy in their governance in exchange for more competitive management and leadership. Thus, the conforming component

of the management vector is drastically reduced, and conditions set up for innovation. Universities can become now learning universities. There is a new class of universities that make sustainable efforts to become learning organizations based on their market driven vision. They are the corporate universities, those that invest in flexible learning and innovation to manage knowledge (Meister, 1998; Stumpf, 1998). A corporate university can be defined as ‘a strategic umbrella for developing and educating employees, customers, and suppliers to meet an organization’s strategy’ (Meister, 1998, p. 267). In a synthesis, the most important characteristics of a learning university are the following: • • • • • • •

Visionary leadership; Value driven management; Double loop learning; Intensive communication network; Dynamic organizational culture; Developed absorptive capacity; Decentralized decision making process at the levels.

Vision is a virtual state of the organization in a possible future. Leaders can develop such visions and then develop convergent strategies to achieve such targets. Managers are caught mostly in operational activities and tasks, being under the

13


pressure of efficiency and conformity. ‘To be sure, it is sometimes difficult to act for the future when the demands of the present can be so powerful and the traditions of the past so difficult to challenge. Yet, perhaps this is the most important role of the university president’ (Duderstadt, 2000, p. 258). Value driven management, which is a direct result of the rising creative class must substitute the controlling management coming from the industrial era. The second loop of learning cannot be functional in the rigid structure of the controlling management, and the controlling management cannot be efficient in a dynamic environment. A substantial change has to be done in the traditional university management and this change has to be supported by a new dynamic organizational culture. Learning means absorptive capacity both at the individual and organizational levels. And all of these characteristics of the learning university cannot exist in a centralized decision making process, as it happens in most former socialist countries. It is imperative to decentralize the decision making down to the levels of the schools and departments, and to develop dynamic capabilities able to sustain double loops of learning.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The topic of intensive knowledge universities as learning organizations is almost in its incipient phase, due to its complexity and the new perspectives of research. However, it is a crucial research field due to the changing role of the university in society and to the new mission formulations. It is almost an axiom that universities are intensive knowledge organizations due to their knowledge creation and knowledge dynamics. However, this intrinsic characteristic cannot be fully developed due to some barriers in their governance coming from tradition and their links to the nation states. Future directions of research could be the following: (1) university as an intelligent organization; (2) university as an entrepreneurial organization

14

through innovation and knowledge creation; (3) university knowledge dynamics and competitiveness; (4) governance and leadership for successful 21st century universities.

CONCLUSION Globalization and business turbulence changed the economic paradigms and the future predictability of our times. In a complex and strongly nonlinear world, these changes triggered many other changes at lower levels and smaller scales which are context dependent. In this category, we may include a series of changes produced in the academic world that imposed new perspectives of understanding and analysis. Although universities are next to Church the oldest social institutions, they must adapt to the new political, technological, social and economical environments. They are knowledge intensive organizations and their missions integrate learning, research and service to community objectives. Due to a semantic halo effect of their learning processes, universities are considered by many people as learning organizations. The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the evolution of university mission, the functional knowledge processes, and to see the necessary conditions for a university to become a learning organization. Focus is on the European universities due to their traditions and to recent changes triggered by the Bologna process. Since continental universities have democratic election systems for their managerial functions, and they are strongly linked to their governmental field of forces, directly or indirectly through the national university systems, their behaviour is still in the conformity zone. In order to become learning organizations they must change the governance system and to increase innovation in the management process.


REFERENCES Aguillo, I., Ortega, L. J., & Fernandez, M. (2008). Webometric ranking of world universities: Introduction, methodology and future developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3), 233–245. doi:10.1080/03797720802254031 Andriessen, D. (2006). On the metaphorical nature of intellectual capital: a textual analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1), 93–110. doi:10.1108/14691930610639796 Andriessen, D. (2008). Knowledge as love: How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge in organizations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(6), 5–12. doi:10.1057/ palgrave.kmrp.8500169 Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Business. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory-action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1991). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning (II): Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baumard, P. (1999). Tacit knowledge in organizations. London: SAGE Publications. Bratianu, C. (2004). University management reform in Japan. Journal of University Development and Academic Management, 1(1), 28–34. Bratianu, C. (2007a). Thinking patterns and knowledge dynamics. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Knowledge Management (pp. 152-157). London: Academic Publishing.

Bratianu, C. (2007b). The learning paradox and the university. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 2(4), 375–386. Bratianu, C. (2008a). A dynamic structure of the organizational intellectual capital. In Naaranoja, M. (Ed.), Knowledge management in organizations: Challenges of Knowledge Management (pp. 233–243). Vaasa, Finland: Vaasan Yliopisto. Bratianu, C. (2008b). Leadership and management in the transition: Romanian higher education system. Management & Marketing, 3(2), 21–37. Bratianu, C., & Andriessen, D. (2008). Knowledge as energy: A metaphorical analysis. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Knowledge Management (pp. 75-82). Reading, MA: Academic Publishing. Bratianu, C., Jianu, I., & Vasilache, S. (2007, May 3-4). Integrators for organizational intellectual capital. Paper presented at the Intellectual Capital CongressAmsterdam, Netherlands. Bratianu, C., & Murakawa, H. (2004). Strategic thinking. JWRI, 33(1), 79–89. Cheng, Y., & Liu, N. C. (2008). Examining major rankings according to the Berlin principles. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3), 201–209. doi:10.1080/03797720802253686 Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. [Special Issue: Technology, Organizations, and Innovation]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. doi:10.2307/2393553 Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School. Debowski, S. (2006). Knowledge management. Sydney: John Wiley & Sons.

15


Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J., & Nonaka, I. (2001). Handbook of organizational learning & knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jongbloed, B., Maassen, P., & Neave, G. (Eds.). (1999). From the eye of the storm: Higher education’s changing institution. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). A university for the 21st century. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Lazzaretti, L., & Tavoletti, E. (2006). Governance shifts in higher education: A cross-national comparison. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 18–37. doi:10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.18

Eardley, A., & Uden, L. (2008). Knowledge sharing in the learning process. Experience with problem-based learning. In Naaranoja, M. (Ed.), Knowledge management in organizations: Challenges of Knowledge Management (pp. 263–273). Vaasa, Finland: Vaasan Yliopiston. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121. doi:10.1002/10970266(200010/11)21:10/113.0.CO;2-E Eucker, T. R. (2007). Understanding the impact of tacit knowledge loss. KM Review, 10(1), 10–13. Gare, A. (2005). Defending the Humboldtian university and the democratic nation-state as institutions of the radical enlightenment. Concrescence: The Australian Journal of Process Thought, 6, 3–27. Gibbons, M. (1997). Factors affecting the balance between teaching and research in the university of the twenty first century. Higher Education in Europe, 22(1), 21–31. doi:10.1080/0379772970220103 Harayama, Y. (1997). The evolution of the university in Europe and in the United States. Higher Education in Europe, 22(1), 9–19. doi:10.1080/0379772970220102 Hedberg, B., & Wolf, R. (2003). Organizing, learning, and strategizing: From construction to discovery. InM. Dierkes, A.B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning & knowledge (pp. 535-557). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16

Lytras, D. M., & Pouloudi, A. (2006). Towards the development of a novel taxonomy of knowledge management systems from a learning perspective: An integrated approach to learning and knowledge infrastructures. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(6), 64–80. doi:10.1108/13673270610709224 Maier, G. W., Prange, C., & Rosenstiel, L. (2003). Psychological perspectives of organizational learning. In Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J., & Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 14–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marga, A. (2005). University reform today (4th ed.). Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Cluj University Press. Mayor, F. (1997). The universal university: The university – the crucible of Europe. CRE-CEPES UNESCO Papers on Higher Education, 111, 143–151. McElroy, M. W. (2003). The new knowledge management: Complexity, learning, and sustainable innovation. Amsterdam: Butterworth Heinemann. Mehallis, M. V. (1997). Teaching versus research: An outmoded debate in the knowledge society. Higher Education in Europe, 22(1), 31–43. doi:10.1080/0379772970220104 Meister, J. (1998). Corporate universities: Lessons in building a world-class work force. New York: McGraw-Hill Trade.


Montesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J. M., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3), 259–273. doi:10.1080/03797720802254072 Naeve, A., Sicilia, M. A., & Lytras, M. D. (2008). Learning processes and processing learning: From organizational needs to learning designs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(6), 5–14. doi:10.1108/13673270810913586 Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of ‘Ba’: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosiere, P. (2003). A theory of organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J., & Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning & knowledge (pp. 490–517). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oakland, J. S. (2003). Total quality management. Text with cases (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Butterworth Heinemann. Ohmae, K. (1982). The mind of the strategist: The art of Japanese business. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.

Ortenblad, A. (2001). On differences between organizational learning and learning organization. The Learning Organization, 8(3), 125–133. doi:10.1108/09696470110391211 Rüegg, W. (2004). A history of university in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511496868 Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning organizations. London: Random House. Shattock, M. (2003). Managing successful universities. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Thinking styles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steward, D. (2001). Reinterpreting the learning organization. The Learning Organization, 8(4), 141–152. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005607 Stumpf, S. A. (1998). Corporate universities of the future. Career Development International, 3(5), 206–211. doi:10.1108/13620439810229424 Styhre, A. (2004). Rethinking knowledge: A Bergsonian critique of the notion of tacit knowledge. British Journal of Management, 15, 177–188. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00413.x Teece, D. T., Pisano, G., & Shuen,A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic ManagementJournal,18(7),509–533.doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:73.0.CO;2-Z Vance, C., Groves, K. S., Paik, Y., & Kindler, H. (2007). Understanding and measuring linearnonlinear thinking style for enhanced management education and professional practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(2), 167–185.

17