Chapter. Improving Organizational Learning With Concept Maps a Business Case Study

Published in Moon, B.; Hoffman, R. R.; Novak, J. & Cañas, A. (Eds.). Applied Concept Mapping Theory,

Techniques, and Case Studies in the Business Applications of Novakian Concept Mapping.

Productivity Press/CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. Pp. 253-274. ISBN 10: 1439828601 / 1-4398-

2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING WITH CONCEPT MAPS:

A BUSINESS CASE STUDY

Barberá-Tomás1, J. D.; Edwards Schachter

2, M. and Reyes-López

3, E. de los

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

1 Faculty of Business Administration and Management, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Camino de Vera s/n, 46022-Valencia (Spain)

2,3 INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), www.ingenio.upv.es

Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas and Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

(Council for Scientific Research and Polytechnic University of Valencia)

Ciudad Politécnica de la Innovación, Edif. 8E 4º. Camino de Vera S/N, Valencia (Spain)

TE +34 963 877 048 – fax +34 963 877 991

Keywords: Concept maps; computer-based mapping tools; organizational learning; knowledge

management; strategy alignment

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.ingenio.upv.es/




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

INDICE

1. Introduction

2. Learning to learn in organizations: approach to an analytical framework

3. Novakian maps for knowledge transference in alignment with business strategy

3.1 Mapping tacit knowledge

3.2 Knowledge transfer

4. Complex Knowledge Transfer: a case study

4.1 Case study context

4.2 The problem

4.3 Methodology and problem resolution

5. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Along the last decades knowledge is increasingly being considered as an organization’s most

important resource for achieving and maintaining a competitive advantage (Drucker 1993, 1999;

Leonard-Barton 1995; Grant1996; Nonaka, Reinmoeller and Senoo, 1998). A considerable

amount of studies realized by Davenport and Prusack (1998); Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995);

Morey, Maybury and Thuraisingham (2002) and Ahmed, Lim and Loh (2002), among others,

demonstrate multiple examples that many of the world’s most successful and innovative

organizations are those that are best at managing their knowledge. Numerous theorists have




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

contributed to the evolution of the Knowledge Management (KM) field with different

perspectives. While several authors have stressed the growing importance of information and

explicit knowledge as organizational resource (Drucker 1993; Nonaka 1994; Wilkens, Menzel

and Pawlowsky 2004; Nonaka, Von Krogh and Voelpel 2006), others have focused on the

cultural dimension and the “learning organization” concept (Slater and Narver 1995; Argyris

1982; Argyris and Schon 1996). Other trends emphasize aspects of KM related to the

Organizational Learning (OL) and the dynamic capabilities (Leonard-Barton 1995; Teece,

Pisano and Shuen 1997) and, more recently, the OL alignment with the business and innovation

strategies (Johannessen, Olson and Olaisen 1999; Teece 1986; 2000; Hung, Lien and McLean

2009). KM includes a multi-disciplined approach to achieving organizational objectives by

making the best use of knowledge, focusing both on processes such as acquiring, creating and

sharing knowledge and the cultural and technical foundations that support them. Typically focus

on organizational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation,

the sharing of lessons learned, integration and continuous improvement of the organization,

overlapping synergistically with organizational learning.

OL is a concept dating from the early 1960s and defined in a wide variety of ways by researchers

(Argyris and Schon 1978, 1996; Dierkes et al. 2001; Lähteenmäki, Toivonen and Mattila 2002).

By the nineties, OL had become increasingly debated by economists and organizational studies’

practitioners and scholars. Although a widespread acceptance of the OL notion and its

importance to strategic performance, no theory or model of OL is still widely accepted (Daft and

Huber 1987; Dogson 1993; Kim, 1993; Lähteenmäki, Toivonen and Mattila 2002; Templeton,

Lewis and Snyder 2002). Questions about the interrelationships between individual learning and




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

OL and how OL can contribute to improve knowledge management are still without a clear

response (Argyris 1992; Pawlowsky 2001).

From a wider perspective, 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 is also common to distinguish between the creation of "new

knowledge" (i.e., innovation) and the transfer of "established knowledge" within a group,

organization, or community (Johannessen, Olson and Olaisen 1999). One of the most cited

models of OL, developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, 1996), differentiates Polanyi's concept

of "tacit knowledge" from "explicit knowledge" and describes a process of alternating between

the two. Tacit knowledge is personal, context specific, subjective, whereas explicit knowledge is

codified, systematic, formal, and relatively easy to handle and communicate (Senker 1995;

Rodhain 1999).

Kolb (1984:38) states that learning “is the process whereby knowledge is created through the

transformation of experience”. Both parts of his definition are important: what people learn

(know-how) and how they understand and apply that learning (know-why). Presumably, learning

facilitates behaviour change that leads to improved performance and the organizational learning

(Fiol and Lyles 1985; Lyles and Schwenk 1992; Senge 1990). Accepting the idea that OL means

the process of improving individual and group actions through better knowledge and

understanding, we are facing the problem of explain how transference and “appropriability”

knowledge occur and the nurture of the links between individual learning with organizational

one.

At present considerable diversity of methods and software tools are used with the purpose of




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

enabling the transference knowledge and supporting KM, but most of these tools, however, have

being developed as part unstructured technological thrust. They are more concerned with new

ways of storing and communicating information than with the actual ways in which people

create, acquire and use knowledge (i.e. how people learn in organizational environments and

how organizational learning is improved). Also OL is viewed as the process of acquisition or

development of competences at different levels of aggregation (individuals, groups, networks)

within the organization (ie, an ability to apply new knowledge to enhance the performance of an

existing activity or task, or to adapt to new circumstances). For Ahmed, Lim and Loh (2002:16)

“organizational learning therefore seeks to describe a process of increasing the overall

performance of an organization by encouraging knowledge creation and use in each of its value

chain functions, in order to render each a source of competitive advantage or core competence”.

In this sense, we agree with Argyris and Schön (1996) in that learning, to be considered

organizational, must be incorporated by means of epistemological artefacts (maps, memoranda

and programmes) that are found in the context of the organization. Collaborative environments

and the application of social computing tools can be used for both creation and transfer of

knowledge, contributing to organizational learning and knowledge management in alignment

with business strategy (Lee, Courtney and O'Keefe 1992; Davenport and Prusak 1998). Learners

can function as designers using the technology as tools for analyzing the world, accessing

information, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they

know to others (their “mental models”). Concept maps can gather knowledge from both

individuals and groups, facilitate knowledge creation process, act as a discussion and

communication tool and assist in the diffusion of knowledge and learning processes within an




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

organization (Cañas et al. 2004).

Nevertheless, utilization of concept maps and concept mapping tools are still very limited in the

business environment when compared to educational. Additionally relatively little research has

been done on the contribution of concept maps to knowledge transference, organizational

learning and knowledge management (Fourie 2005; Henao-Cálad and Arango-Fonnegra 2007).

In this chapter we analyse some theoretical perspectives exploring the links between individual

and organizational learning (Ausubel, Novak and Hanesian 1978; Kim 1993; Pawlowsky 2001).

We also inquire into the potential of concept maps for supporting processes of organizational

learning (OL) (Reyes López and Barberá 2004; Sutherland and Katz 2005). And, finally, we

present a study case applying concept maps (using CmapTools) to improve understanding of

organizational learning and in particular the alignment of knowledge transfer with business

strategy in a technological firm.

2. Learning to learn in organizations: approach to an analytical framework

What’s the meaning of the expression “learn to learn” in relation to organizational learning? Is

it possible, for example, the integration between the Theory of Meaningful Learning (ML) and

the theoretical frameworks of organizational learning?

Several authors disagree with the possibility of comparability between individual learning and

organizational learning, but a considerable amount of literature considers that organizations can

learn. The problem of the conceptualization of OL goes beyond that they can learn despite they

cannot read a book or attend a course, implying psychological and epistemological constraints




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

(Cook and Brown 1999; Lähteenmäki, Toivonen and Mattila 2002). Huber (cited by Argyris

1992:7) suggest that “an organization has learned if any of its components have acquired

information and have this information available for use, either by other components or by itself,

on behalf of the organization” . Organizational learning must take account the interplay between

different levels of aggregation: actions and interactions of individuals and the actions and

interactions of high-level entities, as departments, divisions and networks within the

organization. Kim (1993:12) appoints that “although the meaning of the term ‘learning’ remains

essentially the same as in the individual case, the learning process is fundamentally different at

the organizational level. A model of organizational learning has to resolve somehow the

dilemma of imparting intelligence and learning capabilities to a nonhuman entity without

anthropomorphizing it”.

Meaningful Learning (as contrasted with rote learning) is differentiated from other types of

learning due the following key characteristics: is non-arbitrary and consists in a substantive

incorporation of new knowledge into the learner cognitive structure; is necessary for

development of conceptual understanding and sometimes is characterized as deep or dynamic

learning (opposite to surface or static learning), suppose a deliberate effort to link new

knowledge with the previous knowledge (prior learning), is related to experiences with objects

and events, and the learner must be encouraged to learn meaningfully. ML depends of the

quality of the materials and knowledge resources, an appropriate didactic instruction, the learner

motivation and the learning environment (Novak 1998). The theory of meaningful learning has

been essentially applicable to individuals, but its ulterior constructivist interpretations and

applications embrace the possible empowerment of each learner and the interrelationships




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

between learners as members of teams and groups.

Ausubel's theory of learning (Ausubel Novak and Hanesian 1978; Novak 1998) claims that new

concepts to be learned can be incorporated into more inclusive concepts or ideas in a hierarchical

structure. Meaningful Learning (ML) results when the learner chooses to relate new information

to ideas the learner already knows, and the more inclusive concepts or ideas are advance

organizers. Advance organizers can be verbal phrases or a graphic and, in any case, the advance

organizer is designed to provide what cognitive psychologists call the "mental scaffolding” to

learn new information. As we can observe in Figure 1, cognitive learning may be

representational (acquisition of concept names or labels), concept learning (acquisition of

concept meanings) and propositional learning (acquisition of propositional meanings). All these

kinds of cognitive learning may be used or shown in a concept map (Novak 1998:41).

ML occurs at individual levels and also at organizational levels throughout the integration and

shared of the minds (cognitive structures and mental models) of the organizational members

(Wilkens, Menzel and Pawlowsky 2004). But the empirical evidence obtained by an ample

research at individual level is still scarce in the black-box of the organizations and their complex

environments, where learn to learn seems be a more complex activity. In an organization, agents

(learners) are members of an interacted system and the environment can best be characterised as

enacted. Weick (1969) created the phrase “enacted environment” which means that “the human

being creates the environment, to which the system then adapts. The human actor does not react

to an environment, he enacts it” (Weick 1969:64). Subjective construction of meaning is

developed on the basis of symbols and language and organizational reality is constructed by

interaction of organisational members who develop a joint interpretation. The key element of




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

knowledge thus is not the intellectual capacity but the capacity to interact and develop a common

understanding and pattern of interpretation in turbulent fields. Organizational knowledge results

from former experiences in the enacted system and leads to organizational images,

organizational theories-in-action (Argyris and Schön 1978; Weick and Bougon 1986),

organizational interpretation systems or shared mental models (Senge 1990). From this

constructivist perspective, organizational knowledge can be defined as a result of the subjective

interpretation of its members and is not understood as an “objective” mental reflection of reality,

but essentially as a co-existing and conflicting interpretation of reality that is based on the history

of each participating member of a joint interaction system.

Pawlowsky (2001) has developed a conceptual framework for OL based on the common

elements of the different approaches since it first appeared in the literature (Cyert and March

1963). This model identifies the fundamental dimensions of the learning process, in order to

analyse the specific actions undertaken and to understand better their origins, their development

and their effects (Figure 1).




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of Organizational Learning (adapted from Pawlowsky 2001)

The first of these dimensions is the level of the system at which the learning takes place

(individual, group, organization, inter-organizational). The second dimension is the orientation of

the learning undertaken: cognitive, cultural or conative (or learning through action), similar to

the three orientations proposed by the theory of Meaningful Learning (Ausubel Novak and

Hanesian 1978). The third dimension is the type of learning achieved by means of the tool used

or the action taken. Since the concept of OL arose as an attempt to incorporate within a theory

the efforts made by organizations to survive in increasingly competitive environments, the types

of learning described in Pawlowsky’s model have a strongly evolutionist character. Thus the

types described refer essentially to the degree of complexity and of self-awareness of the subject

Individual

Group

Organization

Inter-organizational

Identification

Generation

Difussion

Integration

Action

Cognitive

Conative

Cultural

Type I: Simple loop

Type II: Double loop

Type III: Deutero

Learning levels

Learning phases Learning orientation

Types of learning

Conceptual

Framework of OL




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

in his or her relationship to the environment and with him or herself as a learner.

Type I or “simple loop” learning is conceived as a correction of deviations in the behaviour of

the organization carried out through “normal” operations within the working of the organization.

Type II or “double loop” learning implies an adaptation to the environment, and therefore an

awareness (and perhaps a modification) of the models assumed by the organization in its

relationship with it. Lastly, “deutero-learning” or Type III learning refers to a type of analysis in

depth of the “cognitive” and behavioural structures of the organization.

Finally, Pawlowsky distinguishes between the various phases of the process of OL, in order to be

able to assign to each of these phases the resources and tools adequate for their objectives:

identification, generation or creation, diffusion or dissemination, integration and transformation.

The phase of identification consists of locating the information that may be relevant for the

learning; the generation or creation phase refers to the creation of new knowledge; the third

phase is the diffusion or dissemination of the knowledge through the different levels (individual,

group, organization) that participate in the process; the fourth phase consists of the integration of

the knowledge generated and disseminated into the “cognitive structures”, usually called the

“knowledge systems” of the organization (Pawlowsky 2001). The fifth and last phase is the

transformation of the knowledge into action and to its effect on the standard conduct of the

organization and its enacted environment. In the theory of meaningful learning, the three

operational phases are: the advance organizer, the presentation of learning task or material and

the phase of strengthening cognitive organization. In the cognitive structure of the learner it

produces a process of assimilation of knowledge (obliterative subsumption, progressive

differentiation, integrative reconciliation or superordinate learning). In sum, ML participates in




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

OL processes, but is no equivalent to it. Its presence can improve or no the OL; i.e, individuals

and a group within the organization can learn significantly determined knowledge but it does not

mean that the organization is doing it.

The role of socialization processes is very important for disseminating a “meaningful”

organizational learning. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have called “externalization" to the

process throughout tacit knowledge of individuals within the organization can be made explicit

or codified. For opposition, “internalization” is the reverse process, identifying how formal

rules and procedures and process are “captured” by the employees. These researchers have

chosen the term "socialization" to denote the sharing of tacit knowledge, and the term

"combination" to represent the dissemination of codified knowledge. According to this model,

knowledge creation and organizational learning take a path of socialization, externalization,

combination, internalization, socialization, externalization, combination . . . etc. in an infinite

spiral.

3. Novakian maps for knowledge transference in alignment of business strategy

3.1 Mapping tacit knowledge

According Cañas and Novak (2006) a concept map is “a tool that allows one or more persons to

represent explicitly their understanding of a domain of knowledge”. From the perspective of

knowledge management is a tool for acquiring and representing tacit knowledge. In this sense,

although the graphical display of tacit knowledge has been in use for centuries as a method of




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

expressing individual thinking, CMs provide a functionality which enables the user to share his

or her knowledge, to collaborate with others, and to show the logical connection between

concepts (Huff 1990). Furthermore, concepts can be re-used, and information in the form of

voice, documents, or movie clips can be added. CMs are therefore a very useful cognitive tool in

acquiring knowledge and making it available to others in the enacted environment of

organizations. Despite there are other tools for elaborating ideas and cognitive maps, Novakian

CMs includes the possibility of describing objects and explaining events, formalising and

displaying tacit knowledge, as well as to transfer it with the help of pictures, movie clips, voice,

text, structure or other forms of description to explicit knowledge (Cañas and Novak 2006). CMs

facilitate sense-making and meaningful learning on the part of individuals who make or use

concept maps due they are constructed to reflect organization of the declarative memory system.

McAleese (1988) suggests that the process of making knowledge explicit, using nodes and

relationships, allows the individual to become aware of what they know and as a result to be able

to modify what they know. He proposed the methapor of the Knowledge Arena as a virtual space

where learners may explore what they know and what they do not know.

In the business knowledge arena, mapping tacit knowledge acquires special relevance for

capture a picture of the organizational learning within the knowledge management and strategy

dynamic (Bougon 1992; Fiol and Huff 1992; Markoczy and Goldberg 1993). CMs can also be

very useful for investigating the organizational learning in communities of practice, attending

their holistic interrelations between working, learning and innovation (Brown and Duguid 1991;

Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002).




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

3.2 Knowledge transfer

Knowledge transfer mechanism between individuals and organization is at the heart of

organizational learning, it represents the process through which individual learning becomes

embedded in an organization’s memory and structure (Kim, 1993; Busch, Richards and

Dampney, 2001). In spite technical expertise is of great importance in organizations that compete

in technological and scientific contexts, we know very little about how to transfer and improve

the “appropriability” of technological knowledge and expertise inside the organization (Teece

2000).

Moreover, the knowledge to be transferred in a firm is no only about technical specifications of a

product or not simply technological. Knowledge about competitors, customers and suppliers is

also part of the mix and is an important tacit dimension which is difficult to transfer without the

transfer of individuals (Teece 2000). In this sense, knowledge is often widely diffused in an

organization. Some of it may lie in R&D laboratories, some on the factory floor, and some

resides in the executive or managers knowledge. Sometimes what is critical is the capacity to

weave it all together, and in many circumstances organizations contract knowledge brokers and

other specialists in technology transfer for translating knowledge within the firm.

A concept map can seen as a tool for process of knowledge transfer, i. e., an instrument that

allows one or more persons collaborate synchronously or at different times in the process of

representing explicitly their understanding of a domain of knowledge (Cañas and Novak 2006).

Related to this process, Vygotsky (1978) stressed the importance of social exchange in learning,

especially with learners who are at about the same Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), that




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

is, learners who are at about the same level of cognitive development (same ZPD) on a given

topic will enhance each other’s earning if they engage in active exchange of ideas and can see.

From the perspective of the knowledge transfer, we consider that also is relevant still even in

those cases of individuals with different ZDP or which have a gap in a determined knowledge

area. For example, a conceptual map can be useful to explain the expert ideas on a specific topic

or question to other persons that haven’t this expertise knowledge. According Henao-Cálad and

Arango-Fonnegra (2007) “if experts are involved, the concept maps can continue representing

the problem as the profile of the problem becomes clearer. If the concept maps are stored, they

constitute part of the collective history and they serve as a starting point for the methodological

memory of the topic” Henao-Cálad and Arango-Fonnegra (2007:44). We agree with these

authors considering that CMs constitute a strategic instrument for knowledge preservation and

transfer and KM. But the use of CMs is a necessary but nor sufficient condition for the

successful of the organizational learning. The existence of a properly environment or the

individuals motivation are key premises for the meaningful learning and organizational learning

too. Motivation is intrinsically related with the concept of the alignment between the staff and

the strategy business (Teece 2000). Also alignment implies that the firm must have the potential

to learn, unlearn, or relearn based on its past behaviors. In this sense the process of learning

involves both individual and organizational levels at the creation and manipulation of this

tension between constancy and change. Hedberg states it this way: “Although organizational

learning occurs through individuals, it would be a mistake to conclude that organizational

learning is nothing but the cumulative result of their members' learning. Organizations do not

have brains, but they have cognitive systems and memories. As individuals develop their




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

personalities, personal habits, and beliefs over time, organizations develop world views and

ideologies. Members come and go, and leadership changes, but organizations' memories

preserve certain behaviors, mental maps, norms, and values over time” (1981:6).

4. Complex Knowledge Transfer: a case study

4.1 Case study context

The case study that we have considered deals with a company specialized on design,

development, production, marketing and sales of implants and instruments for orthopaedic and

trauma surgery. This firm is a leader in the Spanish orthopaedic industry and exports world wide

to more than forty countries competing in all continents. Their products include implants made

from advanced biomaterials with osteoinductive and resorbable properties like “Implants and

Gene-Activated Matrix”, designed to support the regenerative activity of the stem cells.

Since the date of its establishment at the middle of 1993, this firm followed one a precise

innovation policy with the clear idea of introducing to the market its own innovating products at

the Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery areas. Today is a medium-size firm with 40

employees, totally consolidated in its sector with a diversity of products (surgery instruments,

cervical and lumbar cages of porous material, prosthesis, etc.) and positioned in the highest part

of a market dominated by multinational companies.

4.2 The problem




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

In 1997 the firm developed spinal column implants, which is the sector with highest growth

potential in the market for surgical implants. These implants are considered to be “high range”,

since they are destined for a type of surgery treating pathologies of the spinal column of recent

application and highly complexity. To cope with this business opportunity the firm increased the

size of the R&D and the sales departments, hiring three new representatives for the Spanish

market and maintaining the same resources for the international market (a sales manager with

wide experience in the market for spinal implants). By mid-2000 the firm had a product ready to

be marketed -a “fijador transpedicular”- an implant considered to be the “gold standard” of

spinal surgery and necessary for the future development of a line of products for this type of

interventions.

Two and a half years later, the sales results of this product in Spain were well below

expectations, whereas international sales were growing as planned. Multiple and possible causes

of this problem were analyzed, concluding that the main reason laid in the slowness of local sales

staff to acquire the necessary knowledge about the product to face the market.

An efficient appropriability of knowledge was extremely important in the commercialization

process (so much so that it can be defined as one of the firm’s principal strategic objectives) that

the representative should be able to maintain a dialogue with the surgeon in scientific terms, at

least with regard to the matters surrounding the application of the implant. In this sense, a large

part of the marketing of the sector was dedicated to providing the manufacturer with a certain

scientific “legitimacy”, which must be confirmed by the firm’s representative to the customer.

Furthermore, at the end of this period the three sales representatives were hired by other firms,




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

and were replaced by new representatives with no experience in the sector. The firm was faced

with the problem of providing fast training with a complex knowledge package to the sales

representatives, i. e., how to deal with information, especially information acquired by staff in

the course of their previous years of experience in the organization and how to transfer this

expertise to novel employees (Heijst, Spek and Kruizinga 1997). This kind of situation, in words

of Novak (1998:34) is a problem in schools settings but “it is especially critical in corporate

settings where knowledge has become more important than the traditional resources of land,

labor and capital”. On other hand, this problem shows that the dividing frontier between tacit

and explicit knowledge not always may be totally defined. In this case, there was a high

interrelationship between the proper complex characteristics of the product (clearly established

in schemes provided by the R&D department) with contextual and tacit issues, as the specific

scientific and technological vocabulary and modes to explain functioning procedures.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995:239) stood out that “it is very important for the organization to

support and stimulate the knowledge-creating activities of individuals or to provide the

appropriate contexts for them. Organizational knowledge creation should be understood as a

process that organizationally amplifies the knowledge created by individuals and crystallizes it

at the group level through dialogue, discussion, experience sharing, or observation”.

4.3 Methodology and problem resolution

The firm took the decision of jointed an organizational learning project with the support of a

knowledge institute researcher with experience in using technological tools for KM, particularly




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

in the elaboration and use of concept maps. The project objectives were:

Problem identification and search of possible resolution, i. e., to identify the knowledge

gap which caused the problem and locate the specific knowledge capable of plugging this

gap

Knowledge generation, elaborating specifically concept maps. This step correspond with

conceptualization, included research, clarification and modelling of existent knowledge

Knowledge dissemination at the intra-organizational level (knowledge transference of

concept maps and their elicited contents)

Integration of this new knowledge content into the “knowledge systems” of the

organization

Transforming the transferred knowledge into organizational conduct, in alignment with

the business strategy of the firm

In this project CMs were used in three of the five phases of the Pawlowsky theoretical

framework: generation, dissemination and transformation. The use of this technique can also be

described in terms of the other dimensions in the analytical framework (Pawlowsky 2001).

Related to the learning levels, CMs were applied to individuals and groups, since they express

the propositional hierarchies realized by the members of a R&D department. The learning will be

of Type II or double loop, since it involves adaptation of the organization to the specific

characteristics of the spinal implants sector, more complex than the other sectors of the market

for implants for orthopaedic surgery and traumatology. Also the organization commits itself to




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

modifying its usual way of operating in order to undertake this adaptation. Finally, the

orientation of the learning was predominantly cognitive, but the cultural learning involved in the

use of a tool such as CMs was taken into account. Table 1 summarises this description of the

maps within the theoretical framework of organizational learning.

Table 1. Methodology and process of application of CMs

Tool Level of

learning

Type of

Learning

Orientation of

learning Phase of learning

Concept Maps Individual/

Group

Type II or

double loop

Cognitive/cultu

ral

Generation /

dissemination /

transformation

Throughout the exposition of the results of the first two phases of the project (identification and

generation of knowledge) we have used profusely concepts taken directly from the Theory of

Meaningful Learning. In the phase of identification several important obstacles were identified:

the des-contextualization of the learning respect to the salesmen ZPD (Vygostky 1978), the lack

in the previous knowledge and expertise level of the learners (with a very heterogeneous

background) and limitations of materials and training. Normally the training of sales staff was

limited to the reading of a series of basic medical manuals orientated to doctors or nurses

formation on the one hand, and of a biomechanical description of the product provided by the

R&D department, on the other. Salesmen were overwhelmed by concepts of pathological

anatomy or biomechanics, being very hard for them a clear knowledge related to the product they

must sell. On other hand, available schemes were elaborated by the R&D department employees

and while they considered them clear and appropriate, they were no understood by salesmen.




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

One specific error in the schemes was a lack in the concepts identification of the product and a

deficient conceptual propositional hierarchy. These conditions did not favour a meaningful

learning and hinder the construction of new meanings. The errors arisen from the so-called

LIPH, Limited or Inappropriate Propositional Hierarchies: as the meaning of every concept is

constructed by means of the series of propositions in which it is immersed, a learning based on

LIPH will lead to the erroneous incorporation of new meanings or will paralyse their effective

incorporation (Gonzalez, Morón and Novak 2001).

In addition to the technological support of knowledge management, employees received training

with regard to the exchange of knowledge, especially for the dissemination of best practises. The

company concentrated very much on product training and best practice seminars to facilitate

knowledge creation and its distribution.

The first step was to identify the experts whose knowledge could solve the gaps detected. The

experts were identified by qualitative methods, given the small size of the firm; the method of

nomination was used, based on the existence and acceptance of a qualified opinion. In this case,

the Technical Director -responsible to the General Management of the R&D and Manufacturing

departments- was chosen as the possessor of a qualified opinion, because he had held this post

since the foundation of the firm, and had been for four years in charge of the R&D department of

another multinational firm in the same sector. Other expert chosen was the R&D Engineer in

charge of the development of products for the spinal column. This expert operates under several

disciplines, but all of them product oriented, since his work is the development of the product.

We therefore conjectured that the propositional hierarchy that could be provided by the

representation of the expert’s knowledge was the resource that would make good the deficiency




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

detected in the sales department, if the knowledge generation phase could be carried out

correctly.

The first map made was for Cervical Plates: in this map it was decided to start from a concept

that would include a range of implants rather than one particular implant, since the firm intended

to launch at least two products of different characteristics within this range. The map therefore

explains the general attributes of cervical plates related to those of the most usual types of this

range of implants. The map was elaborated considering a set of core questions to delimit the

problem:

What is cervical plate?

What is cervical plate for?

In which context does cervical plate used?

What are the principal technical characteristics of a cervical plate?

How does a cervical plate “function”?

The following Figure 2 show the concept maps elaborated for cervical plates.




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

Figure 2. CM of Cervical Plates




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

The next map was that of the Tic-Tac Lumbar Plate: this product was the most innovative, being

based on a new surgical approach to a set of pathologies. For this reason, we labelled the

conceptual peak “tic-tac plate project” instead of the specific product, in order to develop in

greater depth links between surgery and biomechanical aspects whose newness would be

fundamental in achieving the initial acceptance of the product by the market (Figure 3)




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

Figure 3. CM for the development of a Tic-Tac Plate Project.




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

Finally we drew up the map of the Porobloc Intersomatic Boxes, a specific product, whose

distinguishing characteristic is the use of a new material. The map therefore (Figure 4) illustrates

the general characteristics of the product, those of the new material, and the functional

advantages of this new material over those normally used.

Figure 4. CM for the development of POROBloc intersomatic cages.




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

The maps repeat concepts and propositions regarding the fusion (or arthrodesis) of the vertebrae,

function for which the spinal implants are intended, which must be anchored as inclusive

concepts (Novak, 1998) Moreover, although in Figures 1, 2 and 3 the map concepts here do not

include links to other resources -a large number of images subordinated to the concepts, which

are fundamental in illustrating the concepts related to descriptive anatomy.

The remaining phases of the project were the dissemination throughout the elaboration and

diffusion of an instruction package for the commercial department of the three products,

followed by the integration within the sales department’s usual training procedure before the

launch of a new product. And finally, the transformation of the knowledge into action, which can

be evaluated and measured by reviewing the maps in the light of the learners’ commercial

experience of the new product, adding new concepts or modifying the existing hierarchies. Once

the use of concept maps had been incorporated into the normal working of the organization,

consideration can be given to making new maps, more focussed on marketing strategies, to

support the transformation of knowledge into action. When salesmen were asked to evaluate

their experience with regard to concept maps, they stated that concept maps are an excellent tool

for eliciting a clear representation of knowledge. Also R&D employee value positively the self-

explanatory structure of the CMs, considering that this technique is useful to transfer in a simple

mode the complexity associated to the technical diagrams.

5. Conclusion

In our case-study concept maps helped to individuals and the R&D group to explicit knowledge




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

which was masquerading in the enacted environment of the firm. R&D employees did not

understand the salesmen limitations and, in this sense, the concept mapping technique has

contributed to improve the data warehouse of the organization, integrating and clarifying the

transference of internal research reports and explicit internal best practices. In this study-case

concept maps have shown to be user-friendly analytical tools for delivering of improved

knowledge access and the enhancement of the organization’s knowledge environment, including

the willingness of individuals to freely share their knowledge and experiences. We consider that

CMs are potent and low cost tools for improving the transference knowledge process and the

organizational learning integrating both content and context learning aspects. From the above-

mentioned use of CMs it became apparent that concept map technology –i.e., CmapTools

software- provides excellent facilities for knowledge sharing and acquiring processes in complex

technological environment. Experts can make their knowledge available to other employees,

reinforcing the commitment in alignment with the business strategies of the firm. In this study-

case, it can observe that both salesmen and R&D experts acquired new knowledge meaningfully.

For this reason, we consider that the Theory of Meaningful Learning and the use of tools such

concept maps can make important contributions to investigate and to improve the organizational

learning and the knowledge management in organizations.




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

References

Ahmed, P. K.; Lim, K. K. and Loh, A. Y. E. 2002. Learning through knowledge management.

Butterworth-Heinemann. UK.

Ausubel, D. P. Novak, J. D. and Hanesian, H. 1978. Educational psychology: a cognitive view

(2º edic). Rinehart and Winston: New York.

Argyris, C. 1982. Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. 1992. On organizational learning. Blackwell Publishing. USA.

Argyris, C. and Schon D. A. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C. and Schon D. A. 1996. Organizational Learning: Vol. 2. Theory, Method, and

Practice. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Bougon, M. G. 1992. Congregate cognitive maps: a unified dynamic theory of organization and

strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 29(3):369-389.

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward

a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science 2(1):40-57.

Busch, P., Richards, D. and Dampney, C., 2001. Visual mapping of articulable tacit knowledge.

Proceedings of the 2001 Asia-Pacific symposium on Information visualisation - Volume 9,

Sydney, Australia, 37 - 47 .

Cañas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Eskridge, T., Gómez, G., Arroyo, M. and

Carvajal, R. 2004. CmapTools: A Knowledge Modeling and Sharing Environment. In Concept




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology, ed. A. J. Cañas; J. D. Novak and F. M. González.

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Universidad Pública de

Navarra: Pamplona, Spain. 125-133.

Cañas, A. J. and Novak, J. D. 2006. Re-examining the foundations for effective use of concept

maps. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping, ed. A. J.

Cañas and J. D. Novak. San José, Costa Rica.

Cyert, R. M. and March, J.G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S. 1999. Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between

organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science 10 (4):381-400.

Daft, R.L., and Huber, G.P. 1987. How organizations learn: a communication framework.

Research in the Sociology of Organizations 5:1-36.

Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press:

Cambridge.

Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. 2001. Handbook of Organizational Learning

and Knowledge. Oxford University Press.

Dodgson, M. 1993. Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organization Studies

14(3):375-394

Drucker, P. F. 1993. Post-capitalist society. Butterworth Heinemann: London.

Drucker, P.F. 1999. Management challenges for the 21st century. Harper Business: New York.

Eden, C. 1992. On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies 29 (3):261-265.

Fiol, C. M. and Huff, A. S. 1992. Maps for managers: where are we? Where do we go from here?

Journal of management studies 29 (3):267-285.




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M.A. 1985. Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review

10(4):803-813.

Fourie, L. C. H. 2005. Computer-based concept mapping tools in business. Proceedings of San

Diego International Systems Conference, San Diego, State University, USA, 8-10 July 2005.

González, F. M., Morón, C. and Novak, J.D. 2001. Errores conceptuales. Diagnosis, tratamiento

y reflexiones. Pamplona: Eunate.

Grant, R. M. 1996. Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: organizational

capability as knowledge integration. Organizational Science 7 (4):375-387.

Gurteen, D. 1998. Knowledge, creativity and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management 2:

5-13

Henao-Cálad, M. and Arango-Fonnegra, M. P. 2007. Concept maps as a strategy to convert

knowledge in knowledge management. VINE: The journal of information and knowledge

management systems. 37 (1):41-48.

Heijst, G., Spek, R., and Kruizinga, E. 1997. Corporate memories as a tool for knowledge

management. Expert Systems With Applications 13, 41- 54.

Herdberg, B. 1981. How organizations learn and unlearn. Handbook of organizational design.

Oxford University Press

Huff, A. S. 1990. Mapping strategic thought. New York: Wiley.

Hung, R. Y., Lien, B. Y. and McLean, G. N. 2009. Knowledge Management Initiatives,

Organizational Process Alignment, Social Capital, and Dynamic Capabilities. Advances in

Developing Human Resources 11 (3):320-333.

Johannessen, J. A.; Olson, B. and Olaisen, J. 1999. Aspects of innovation theory based on




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

knowledge-management. International Journal of Information Management 19 (2):121-139.

Kim, D. H. 1993. The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management

Review (fall 1993), 37-50.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs: New-Jersey. Prentice-Hall.

Lähteenmäki, S.; Toivonen, J. and Mattila, M. 2002. Critical Aspects of Organizational Learning

Research and Proposals for Its Measurement. British Journal of Management Volume 12(2):

113-129.

Lee, S., Courtney, J. F., Jr. and O'Keefe, R. M. 1992. A system for organizational learning using

cognitive maps. OMEGA International Journal of Management Science 20 (1):23-36.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge — Building and Sustaining Sources of

Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, USA.

Lyles, M.A. and Schwenk, C.R. 1992. Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge

structures. Journal of Management Studies 29(2):155-174.

McAleese, R. 1988. The Knowledge Arena as an Extension to the Concept Map: Reflection in

Action. Interactive Learning Environments 6(1):1-22.

Markoczy, L. and Goldberg, J. 1993. A method for eliciting and computing causal maps.

International Workshop on Managerial and Organizational Cognition EIASM, Brusells, 11-15

May.

Morey, D.; Maybury, M. and Thuraisingham, B. 2002. Knowledge Management: Classic and

Contemporary Works. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review 69 (6 Nov-




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

Dec):96–104.

Nonaka, I. 1994. A Dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science

5 (1):14-37.

Nonaka, I., Reinmoeller, P. and Senoo, D. 1998. The art of knowledge systems to capitalize on

market knowledge. European Management Journal 16 (6):673-684.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies

create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., Umemoto, K. 1996. A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.

International Journal of Technology Management 11(7/8):833 – 845.

Nonaka, I.; Von Krogh, G. and Voelpel, S. 2006. Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory:

Evolutionary Paths and Future Advances. Organization Studies 27(8):1179-1208.

Novak, J. D. 1998. Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools

in schools and corporations. Lawrence Erbaum Associates Inc. Pub. USA.

Pawlowsky, P. 2001. The Treatment of Organizational Learning in Management Science. In

Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, ed. M. Dierkes; A. Berthoin-Antal, J.

Child and I. Nonaka. Oxford University Press: New York.

Polanyi, M., 1967. The tacit dimension Routledge and Kegan Paul London U.K.

De los Reyes, E. and Barberá, D. 2004. Los Mapas Conceptuales como Herramienta de

Aprendizaje Organizacional: Aproximación a un Marco Teórico y Presentación

de Resultados Parciales de un Proyecto. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on

Concept Mapping, ed. A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak and F. M. González. Pamplona,

2004.




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

Rodhain, F. 1999. Tacit to explicit: transforming knowledge through cognitive mapping: an

experiment. Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel

research. New Orleans, Louisiana, United States, 51 - 56

Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

Senker, J. 1995. Networks and tacit knowledge in innovation. Economies et societes 29(9) :99-

118.

Slater, S. F. and Narver, J. C. 1995. Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of

Marketing 59 (3):63-74.

Sutherland, S. and Katz, S. 2005. Concept mapping methodology: A catalyst for organizational

learning. Evaluation and Program Planning 28 (3):257-269.

Teece, D. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation. Organizational arrangements for

regimes of rapid technological progress. Research Policy 15(6):285-305.

Teece, D. 2000. Strategies for Managing Knowledge Assets: the Role of Firm Structure and

Industrial Context. Long Range Planning 33:35-54

Teece, D. J.; Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. In:

Strategic Management Journal (18):509-533.

Templeton, G. F., Lewis, B. R. and Snyder, C. A. 2002. Development of a Measure for the

Organizational Learning Construct. Journal of Management Information Systems.19(2):175-218.

Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weick, K.E. and Bougon, M.G. 1986. Organizations as cognitive maps: charting ways to success

and failure. In The Thinking Organization: Dynamics of Organizational Cognition, ed. H. Sims




2860-1, ISBN 13: 9781439828601.

and D. Gioia. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 103-135.

Weick, K. E. 1969. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: a

guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Wilkens, U.; Menzel, D. and Pawlowsky, P. 2004. Inside the Black-box: Analysing the

Generation of Core Competencies and Dynamic Capabilities by Exploring Collective Minds. An

Organisational Learning Perspective. Management Revue 15 (1):8-26.

Wilkens, U.; Menzel, D. and Pawlowsky, P. 2004. Inside the Black-box: Analysing the

Generation of Core Competencies and Dynamic Capabilities by Exploring Collective Minds. An

Organizational Learning Perspective. Management Revue 15(1), 8-26.

Chapter. Improving Organizational Learning With Concept Maps a Business Case Study

Documents

Transcript of Chapter. Improving Organizational Learning With Concept Maps a Business Case Study