Modelling and benchmarking organisations’ memory capabilities · 30 years from scientists across...

328 Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 8, Nos. 3/4, 2012

Copyright © 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Modelling and benchmarking organisations’ memory capabilities

Athanasios N. Tsirikas, Kleanthis K. Katsaros* and Christos S. Nicolaidis Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Macedonia, 156 Egnatia Str, 54006, Thessaloniki, Greece Fax: +30-2310891636 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Abstract: The paper proposes a functional model for enhancing and evaluating organisations’ memory capabilities. The model consists of well-tested and refined managerial measures that interact seamlessly with one another in order to deliberately preserve past experiences and make them available to support subsequent and increasingly sophisticated activities. Further, it applies the phenomenological model of human memory on the organisational field, by introducing that organisational memory is founded on individual and team interactions, knowledge management processes and technology. The proposed model is based on five dimensions: a) bond quality between employees; b) knowledge diffusion processes; c) organisational training systems, d) knowledge storage capabilities; e) memory and knowledge-based decision making procedures. It acts as an organisational memory diagnostic tool of whether an organisation provides and enhances organisational memory and reveals certain ways of acting towards forming organisational memory. Finally, the paper implements the proposed model in four business sectors in Greece, discusses the findings and proposes a number of strategic policies towards organisations’ memory enhancement.

Keywords: benchmarking; Greece; holistic model; knowledge management; organisational memory.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Tsirikas, A.N., Katsaros, K.K. and Nicolaidis, C.S. (2012) ‘Modelling and benchmarking organisations’ memory capabilities’, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 8, Nos. 3/4, pp.328–351.

Biographical notes: Athanasios N. Tsirikas holds a DiplEng in Mechanical Engineering (AUTH, Greece) and works at Bombardier Transportation in Switzerland, as the Life Cycle Support Manager. In the past, he served as the Production Director at Hellenic Railways Organization and also as a Lecturer at the University of Macedonia (Department of Accounting and Finance) teaching strategic management, marketing management and organisational behaviour. He received his two Master’s in Processes and Technology of Advanced Materials and in Industrial Engineering and his PhD in Strategic Knowledge Management from Macedonia University, Greece. His research interests include: human resources and talent management, strategic knowledge management, organisational behaviour and strategic management.

Modelling and benchmarking organisations’ memory capabilities 329

Kleanthis K. Katsaros is the Senior Business Manager at Technopolis Group of Companies (Greece). In parallel, he works as a Lecturer at Aegean Omiros College (University of Wales MBA programme). He received his two Masters in Information Systems and International Economic Relations respectively, and his PhD in Strategic Change Management from Macedonia University, Greece. His research centres on issues related to: management of change – human resources management – emotional labour – psychology of emotions in the workplace – emotional behaviour towards change – ambiguity and uncertainty tolerance/intolerance – individual and organisational readiness to change – knowledge management.

Christos S. Nicolaidis is a Professor of Strategic Management at Macedonia University in the Department of Accounting and Finance. He received his Master in Business Administration (MBA) from Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, Great Britain and his PhD in International Businesses (Strategic Management and National Culture) from Reading University, Great Britain. He has worked as a Strategy Consultant in firms abroad and in Greece. His research centres on issues related to: empowerment – strategic management: knowing vs. doing gap – aesthetics, intuitive knowledge and competitive advantage – strategic management and national culture – knowledge management: tacit and explicit knowledge.

“…Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it...”

George Santayana, Spanish-American Philosopher (1863–1952)

1 Introduction

Effective remembering seems to be a problematic issue either for individuals or for organisations. Remembering too little is to forget the mistakes and generally the lessons of the past, leading to duplicated effort. On the contrary, remembering too much causes a loss of flexibility and reduces the ability to innovate (Stein, 1995; Weick, 1979). Based on the above insights, organisational memory has received substantial attention in the last 30 years from scientists across a wide range of disciplines, such as organisation theory, knowledge management and information technology (O’Toole, 2011). Historically, the roots of organisational memory stem from the organisational science and information-processing theories of the ‘50s (Walsh and Ungson, 1991). However, intensive research on organisational memory increased especially during the ‘90s as a parallel research field to knowledge management and information systems (Gherardi, 2006).

Nevertheless, the research field of organisational memory exhibits several contradictions regarding a mutually agreed common view on the subject. The literature tends to be somewhat sparse and inconclusive (Ackerman and Halverson, 1998; Jasimuddin et al., 2006; Olfman, 1998). In particular, some earlier researchers (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Ungson et al., 1981) denied the existence of organisational memory. They argued that, unlike an individual human being, an organisation cannot be said to have a memory. Argyris and Schön (1978), for example, express the belief that organisations cannot memorise past knowledge. In this respect, Walsh and Ungson (1991) argue that the idea of organisational memory raises possible problems of anthropomorphism. They believe that attributing characteristics that may be uniquely

330 A.N. Tsirikas et al.

human to organisations may be an everyday convenience, but may obscure rather than clarify research issues. Others, however, argue the opposite. Weick (1979), for instance, claims that organisational memory is integrated in the production of organisational personality, and that organisations must accept and live with their memories.

During the last decade, some studies have highlighted the importance of information technology in developing organisational memory systems which support organisational memory processes (Sherif, 2002). In addition, researchers have noted the barriers to the implementation of organisational memory systems, the possible ways in which they might be by-passed or overcome (Sherif, 2002), and the influence of organisational memory on organisational effectiveness (Olivera, 2000).

Overall, our view on the subject is aligned with those researchers that support the cultivation and development of organisational memory. In particular, we argue that organisations must be capable of managing effectively past knowledge, as this is the only way to prevent past mistakes and use corporate history for future decisions.

In the first part of the present paper, we examine the importance of memory by studying its dimensions within the human and the organisational nature. In this respect, we suggest that organisational memory is founded on individual and team relations, knowledge management processes and technological infrastructure. In the second part, we propose a holistic model for evaluating and modelling organisational memory. More specifically, our proposed model is based on five dimensions:

a the bond quality between employees

b the knowledge diffusion processes

c the organisational training systems

d the knowledge storage capabilities

e the memory and knowledge-based decision making procedures.

In parallel, the model, by using 1–7 scale and taking into account critical issues for each factor, acts as an organisational memory diagnostic tool of whether an organisation provides and enhances organisational memory. Finally, the paper implements the proposed model as a diagnostic tool in four business sectors in Greece, discusses the findings and proposes a number of strategic policies towards organisations’ memory enhancement.

2 The ontology of memory

The term ‘memory’ provides a significant number of different meanings that are commonly used in everyday life. Linguistic uses go far beyond the conventional meaning of cognitive function. Memory term is often used metaphorically in several research fields as biology, information technology, history, and in the organisational and the social sciences (Haberlandt, 1997; Iandoli and Zollo, 2008). Especially, in computer science memory refers to the structuralised concept of files and archives. Hence, it is perceived as an organisational resource aimed at the passive and neutral storage of information. Furthermore, in everyday language, the concept of memory is regarded both as the product and process of remembering (O’Toole, 2011; Sherif, 2002) and in most cases is considered as self-evident.


From an epistemological view, memory refers to the idea of preserving, evoking, testifying, reconstructing, and reutilising a corpus of knowledge, information, practices, habits, and patterns of behaviour (Iandoli and Zollo, 2008). Also, historically, the creative nature of memory is presented by a Greek myth in which ‘Muses’, the goddesses who inspire the creation of literature and arts, were conceived by the union between the goddess of memory, Mnémosyne, and Zeus, the father of ancient Greek Gods.

Based on the above insights, it becomes clear that the role of memory is strongly connected with the human evolution through time. Hence, our perspective on the matter is focused on the specific characteristics of memory, characteristics which are expressed on the basis of either human/biological, or organisational dimension (Ackerman, 1994). On the one hand, human’s evolution is based on memory. Language, tradition, knowledge, science, experience are elements of the human nature that are based on memory (Ashcraft, 1994). On the other hand, organisations whereas being a functional unity of individual human beings and resources, do indeed reveal relevant, yet much more complex behaviour as far as it concerns memory phenomena (Gherardi, 2006; O’Toole, 2011).

Further, organisations base their evolution on past knowledge, patterns, mistakes and achievements, factors that are shaped by individual contribution and are formed on the fundamental pattern of memory system (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Stein, 1995; Weick, 1979). In this respect, Weick (1979, p.206) note that “…if an organization is to learn anything, then the distribution of memory, the accuracy of that memory, and the conditions under which that memory is treated as a constraint become crucial characteristics of organizing…”.

Overall, taking into consideration the above presented insights, it seems essential to trace the in-depth characteristics of memory either under the biological or the organisational filter.

3 Biological and organisational dimensions of memory

3.1 The biological dimension of memory

The human brain has always been, and will continue to be, a research field of great interest to the layperson and scientist alike (Luria, 1973). Moreover, biological studies offer valuable information regarding the structure of memory elements (Carlson, 1994). In this respect, the concept of human memory, as a research field, began to be seriously discussed in the ‘60s with the proposal that ‘long-term memory’ (LTM) and ‘short-term memory’ (STM) represent separate meanings and systems. One of the strongest evidence for this specific dissociation was the behavioural contrast between two types of neuropsychological patients. In particular, patients with the classic amnesic syndrome appeared to have generalised difficulties in learning and remembering new material, verbal or visual (Milner, 1966). However, they seemed to have normal STM.

On the contrary, Shallice and Warrington (1970) proposed an exactly opposite pattern of deficit in patients with damage to the Perisylvian region of the left brain hemisphere. Such patients appeared to have problematic STM but apparently normal LTM. Hence, by the end of ‘60s, the scientific evidence pointed to a two-component memory system. Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) presented a model for explaining the functions and characteristics of each memory system. According to their study, information is assumed


to flow from the environment through a series of very brief sensory memories into a limited capacity short-term memory store (termed as STMS). They claimed also that the longer an item resides in the STM store, the greater the probability of automatic transfer to LTM store.

Figure 1 The dynamic biological mechanism of memory

Spiral function of Knowledge-based long term memory store

Environmental inputs

Sensory registers

Visual

Auditory

Haptic

Sensemaking

Internalisation

Final codification

Short-term memory storeControl processes

Rehearsal

Decision

Retrieval strategies

Output - Action

Expanding tendency

First codification

Decision

Under this framework, and based on the relevant literature (Brickner and Lipshitz, 2004; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Weick, 1993, 1995, 1996) our perspective regarding the function of human memory contains a more dynamic vision (Figure 1). In particular, based on the model of Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) we introduce the role of sensemaking, which according to Weick (1995, 1996) is essentially the structuring of the unknown, and the questioning of how individuals construct, what they construct, why, and with what effect. During the sensemaking stage, the first (rough) coding takes place, followed by the internalisation process (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), during which individuals understand and adapt the environmental inputs according to


their own reality. Moreover, we consider that the model of Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) should be completed with the dynamic nature of LTM store. In more details, we consider LTM as a continuous spiral of experiences and artefacts, which evolves as individuals get older. In other words, we introduce the term of ‘knowledge-based long-term memory store’ (onwards termed as KBLTMS) which represents a tacit and explicit knowledge repository (Nonaka and Takeuchin, 1995). In this respect, the KBLTMS spiral may imitate the wood-peel layers as they are built up on the tree boles with the pass of time, revealing its age and possible environmental incidents. Hence, actions derived from individuals are a dynamic combination of LTM and STM stores. However, as individuals get older, and KBLTMS spiral expands, the last may play a more significant role, affecting stronger the overall behaviour.

Overall, the above analysis signifies that human individual memory systems are distinguished to short and long term. Moreover, LTM system, in respect to our proposal regarding the final action motivators, seems to play a more significant role in decision making as time passes and individuals get older. Accordingly, it raises the first proposal of the paper:

Proposal 1 Decisions and actions of human beings are significantly influenced by the LTM system.

3.2 The organisational dimension of memory

Organisational memory has been a field of experimentation, yet also a field of strong controversies regarding its nature and functions. As stated earlier, several researchers have even denied the existence of organisational memory as they argued that the attribution of human characteristics to organisations cannot lead to safe outcomes (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Ungson et al., 1981). However, others have highlighted the importance of organisational cognition in development and success. In particular, Deutsch’s (1966) aspect, in his model of organisational cognition, concerns an ‘organisational self’, which, like a personal human self, has a central role in focusing and directing overall organisational behaviour. Moreover, researchers have recognised the important role of personalising organisational knowledge (Spender, 1995; Tuomi, 1999). Nevertheless, they questioned the individual and uncoordinated power of personal contribution to the organisational environment. In this respect, we argue that the direct projection of biological memory systems into the organisational field might be venturesome and probably ineffective. Yet, organisations may in some cases exhibit memory characteristics that are related to the biological dimension of memory, presented earlier.

In this part of our paper, we shape a holistic vision of organisational memory phenomena, arguing that they are based on the triptych: relations-knowledge management-technology.

Organisations are considered as a functional unity of tangible and intangible resources (Beer, 1985; Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Consequently, they are obligated to inherit some of the characteristics that individual human beings carry with them, including the cognition processes as a biological system. However, organisational memory phenomena cannot be perceived as an accumulative memory system of individuals (Dimasio, 2000). The biological memory phenomenon does not match established concepts of systems and mechanics. In addition, the input-process sequence


may not fully describe the product, and vice versa. What goes into memory may not come out and the cause or stimulus might not lead to any discernable effect (Haberlandt, 1997).

Therefore, a critical issue regarding the ‘organisational memory’-‘individual contribution’ relationship lies on effective coordination of employees towards a commonly understood and accepted vision. In this spirit, the concept of coordination and unity of goals and vision can be based on practices and artefacts that shape strong bonds and relations between individuals, in conformity to the pattern of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) leading to culture-based perception of organisations (Cook and Yanov, 1993). Under this aspect, organisations shape a unity of goals and vision by applying cultural umbrella, giving priority to the relations between employees. Accordingly, we raise the second proposal of the paper:

Proposal 2 Culture-based enhanced relations between individuals shape a common organisational vision and formulate an organisation’s memory system.

Another issue that has to be examined is the connection between organisational memory and knowledge management. Schwartz et al. (2000) claim that organisational memory has become a close partner of knowledge management, denoting in parallel the actual content that a knowledge management system purports to manage.

The connection between organisational memory and knowledge management is another issue of contention. Knowledge management aims at the effective management of organisational knowledge to create a sustainable competitive advantage. In parallel, knowledge management implies an integrated set of actions and artefacts in order to identify, capture, and preserve the knowledge associated with the activities of an organisation. Davenport and Prusak (1998), for example, define knowledge management as the process of capturing, preserving, and distributing organisational knowledge. However, we are obligated to ask ourselves whether organisational memory and knowledge management are fundamentally distinct fields of enquiry, or they possess substantial commonality. This question is not easy to be answered. Recent knowledge management literature has either identified organisational memory as an element of knowledge management or a scientific field that used similar terms.

In particular, most researchers (Kuhn and Abecker 1998), consider organisational memory as a major component of knowledge management processes. The whole concept is that since organisational memory deals with corporate past knowledge, being concerned with the cultivation of knowledge for future use, should be integrated within knowledge management systems. Accordingly, Randall et al. (1996) consider organisational memory to be a sister concept to knowledge management, and the two are in practice used interchangeably. Hoog and Spek (1997, p.v) acknowledge the close relationship between organisational memory and knowledge management stating that an important problem in knowledge management is “insufficient use of knowledge possibly stored in badly organized corporate memories”.

Nevertheless, some researchers express the belief that organisational memory and knowledge management do not share a common field of interest and should not be confused. Marsh and Morris (2001), for example, draw special attention to temporality, claiming that knowledge management deals with the present, while organisational memory refers to the past. In addition, they conceive knowledge management as relating to the effective management of intellectual capital that is in the present time in use, while organisational memory is concerned with the storage of past knowledge for future use.


Given the fact that a central aim of knowledge management science is the preservation and retrieval of organisational knowledge (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Tuomi, 1999) and that organisational memory is a set of processes and procedures by which knowledge from the past is brought to bear on the present and future (Iandoli and Zollo, 2008; O’Toole, 2011), it seems legitimate to regard organisational memory as a functional part of knowledge management. However, the two terms should not be considered synonymous. From an epistemological view, knowledge management, which, as a whole, refers to the entire issue of managing organisational knowledge, is a far broader scientific field than organisational memory. Storage, retrieval, evaluation and implementation of organisational knowledge are just a part, of the whole concept of knowledge management. Yet, when we refer to organisational memory we can rationally connect it to knowledge management, not only as a dependent constituent, but as a consequence of a specific knowledge management methods and tools (Gray, 2001; Liebowitz and Megbolugbe, 2003) that help to preserve organisational knowledge, to keep it safe for future reference and to bequeath it as one of the most valuable resources to forthcoming employees. Accordingly, we raise the third proposal of the paper:

Proposal 3 Knowledge management tools and processes are directly connected with organisation’s capability of managing its memory functions.

The third element of the triptych we described above is technology. Existing research literature in some cases tends to either neglect the operationalisation of organisational memory systems, taking them for granted, or describes it in the context of a technology-based approach. Information technology actually plays an important role in how organisations bequeath their knowledge to future generation of employees. Anand et al. (1998) consider technology-based organisational memory systems to fully acknowledge technologies as forms of organisational memory, and several researchers (El Sawy et al., 1986; Te’eni and Weinberger, 2000) provide strong support to organisational memory systems that are in a great degree supported from information technology.

Computer-mediated information technology, such as databases, local intranets, or even simple computer-based applications, provide effective mechanisms for storing, retrieving, accessing or even evaluating electronic archives. Stein and Zwass (1995b) appraise the role of technology in organisational memory systems and provide in parallel a functional model, of which information systems are a vital component.

Organisational memory practitioners also recognise the need to support access to organisational memory via e-mail and the internet in a way that organisations treat information (Schwartz et al., 2000). However, dealing with memories does not necessarily means to deal with just a set of information. Organisational memories, if they are to be treated as real memories and not just simply a set of information, should be consciously collected and laid down in the store (IT store) of memories by the organisation itself (Wilson, 1997). In this respect, we envision information technology as an important factor that shapes organisational memory, but not as the most crucial. After all, thousands of secrets of past knowledge have survived up to date within organisational environments, at time when information technology was absent. Hence, we support the role of informational technology as a useful tool in maintaining organisations’ memories. Accordingly, we raise the fourth proposal of the paper:


Proposal 4 Technology can be considered as an important factor that helps organisations to maintain their memories.

Figure 2 The triptych that formulates organisational memory (see online version for colours)

Figure 3 How organisational memory works

Output - Action

Spiral function of Knowledge-based long term memory store

Environmental inputs

Sensory registers

Receivers

Procedures

Information technology

Individual internalisation

Individual codification

Short-term memory storeControl processes

People

Decision

Expanding tendency

Knowledge management methods

Decision

Organisation


Based on the above insights, in Figure 2 we present the triptych that formulates organisational memory according to our perspective. However, the function of organisational memory is different compared to the one presented at the biological model. In Figure 3, we present our perspective about the way organisational memory works. In particular, we argue that organisations are able to receive environmental inputs through organisational receivers (employees), who using specific prescribed procedures transfer the signals to the STMS which involves the human factor. Within STMS individual codification and internalisation take place and the processed signal is transferred through knowledge management methods to the KBLTMS. Employees are practically the only components of STMS as they can never be considered permanent in an organisational environment.

The KBLTMS works as in the biological memory model described earlier and expands acting as a major component of the decision making system as organisations grow. In addition, KBLTM store can be conceived as a combination of IT infrastructure and explicit knowledge elements (books, documents, etc.).

In this respect, we propose the following model for enhancing and evaluating organisational memory, based on the relevant literature and on the accumulative experience gained through working with several organisations.

4 A holistic model for modelling and benchmarking organisational memory

4.1 A theoretical view

Based on the above presented literature and the adopted triptych that formulates organisational memory, we propose a holistic model that can be used by organisations either in order to model their memory systems, or to benchmark their organisational memory capability. The model expands into five dimensions (Figure 4):

• cultural enhancement of employees’ relations

• knowledge diffusion and innovation environment

• life-long training attitude

• construction of knowledge repositories

• knowledge-based decision making systems.

Those dimensions are practically the projected expression of the factors that according to our perspective, formulate organisational memory (Figure 2).

In particular, the first dimension is focused on the cultural enhancement of employees’ relations. Based on the second proposal of our paper, we argue that cultural enhancement of employees’ relations contributes positively to the formation of the organisational vision, strengthens the bonds between different groups of people and promotes the development of unofficial communications channels within the organisation. In this respect, Riva and Galimberti (1998) and Perret et al. (2004) claim that those unofficial communication channels are formed between employees at all levels. In fact, this kind of communication is strongly desired from many organisations (Nokana and Takeuchi, 1995) and in many cases is formulated within virtual networks (More,


1998) that contain significant clusters of organisational knowledge (Perret et al., 2004). In this framework, our perspective is focused on the enhancement of those ‘knowledge containing’ unofficial channels within organisations, as they carry a great amount of corporate knowledge and thus, they signify a significant organisational memory factor.

Figure 4 The five dimensions of organisational memory

Organisationalmemory

Constructio

n of

know

ledge repositories

Dimension 4

The next two dimensions of the proposed model (knowledge diffusion and innovation environment, life-long training attitude) focus on the knowledge distribution, development and preservation within the organisations. Those dimensions reflect the core idea of our third proposal and formulate the basis for an organisational memory system. In particular, although there seems not to be a consensus regarding the nature of organisational memory, most research agrees that knowledge management techniques play a very significant role in the development of the organisational memory in the corporate environment (Gray, 2001; Liebowitz and Megbolugbe, 2003).

The fourth dimension (construction of knowledge repositories) of the model is based either on the third, or on the fourth proposal of the approach described above. It formulates the outcome of a blend of knowledge management techniques under the prism


of information technology support. Borghoff and Pareschi (1998) and Maier (2002) noted the significance of knowledge repositories for the creation of an organisational memory system. Similarly, Kwok and Gao (2004) emphasise the role of centralised knowledge repositories (e.g., web-based solutions); while Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) note that they facilitate the preservation of valuable knowledge within the organisations.

The last dimension is purely based on the role of information technology in building an organisational memory system. It is widely accepted that information technology can be used to extend organisational memory and knowledge management, beyond traditional storage and retrieval of coded knowledge (Schwartz et al., 2000). Within this context, Bennet and Bennet (2004) and Stein and Zwass (1995a, 1995b) consider information technology as one of the most crucial factors in shaping organisational memory and note that the extend in which organisations will utilise their IT capabilities, reveals their capability of gaining a significant competitive advantage.

4.2 Implementation perspectives

The practical implementation of the proposed model within organisations, requires its configuration into a benchmarking tool, easy applicable and convenient. In this respect, we expand each one of the five dimensions into seven statements. Those statements describe the core meaning of each dimension. A similar approach was also employed by Pearn et al. (1995), when they proposed the INVEST model for learning organisations.

In our case, the above mentioned statements derive from two different sources. Firstly, from the discussions and open interviews we had with a number of top management executives from different business sectors, and secondly, from the extensive research of the literature. Yet, there is not a single source of information for the definition of the statements, but they can be considered as the expression of all discussions and literature searches. Each statement is positively expressed, describing a situation or action. The user of the model has to react on this specific statement and compare it to the situation or action within his/her organisation. Each answer that complies with the statement is marked with one point, while zero points are collected in case the user does not agree with the specific statement.

In this context, a rating of one to seven on each of the five dimensions of the model can be discussed by syndicate groups in organisations, by using a benchmarking scale, called ‘anchors’. Those ‘anchors’ are guidelines which give people criteria for analysing and evaluating their ratings. The discussion on the factors will be based on the broad definition of each factor and the list of statements that follow and guide the modelling and benchmarking process. Based on the above, the statements rating scale of one to seven, is divided in three regions. The first region, where 1 to 3 points have been collected (anchor 1), the second region where 3 to 5 points have been collected (anchor 2) and the third region where 5 to 7 points are collected (anchor 3). Each one of the anchors reflects the actual situation in each dimension of the model and is based on the statements rating given by the user of the model.

On the whole, our model can be seen from two different perspectives. Firstly, we can use it to follow a pattern in order to enhance organisation’s memory capability by implementing the statements that are presented for each dimension of the model. Secondly, we can use those statements to benchmark the organisation’s memory capability. As mentioned above, each statement is valued with one point in case the user of the model agrees with it, or is marked with zero, in case the user does not agree. The


maximum score is seven for each dimension. In that way, we present below broader definitions of the model’s dimensions, followed by the statements that shape their overall content. In addition, we present the ‘anchors’ which, as already explained, can be used to evaluate effectively each dimension’s rating and help discussion syndicates to conclude their rating.

4.2.1 Dimension one: cultural enhancement of employees’ relations

The objective of the first dimension is to rate the extent to which

a the workforce as a whole is motivated to create effective social relations with colleagues

b the extent to which organisations organise various social gatherings in order to improve social networking of the workforce.

Table 1 Statements and anchors for dimension 1 – cultural enhancement of employees’ relations

Statements for dimension 1

1 Everyone is allowed to develop social contacts with one another in the company

2 Teams of employees engage in off-site learning experiences to find better ways of working together

3 Employees are encouraged by management to associate with other colleagues after working shifts

4 The organisation supports social in-company gathering of employees

5 The organisation supports in-company frequent get-togethers for exchanging ideas on job issues

6 The organisation promotes social gatherings of employees after working shifts

7 The organisation promotes and organises common activities of workforce groups, during holidays or weekends, in order to make them live common experiences

Anchors for dimension 1

5–7 The organisation supports cultural enhancement of employees’ relations and workforce accepts it positively

3–5 It is not clear whether organisation supports cultural enhancement of employees’ relations and moreover workforce is moderately interested in creating social relations with one another

1–3 The organisation does not support cultural enhancement of employees’ relations and workforce is not interested in creating social contacts

4.2.2 Knowledge diffusion and innovation environment

The objective of the second dimension is to rate the extent to which the organisation

a enables knowledge diffusion among employees

b promotes innovation attitude from workforce.


Table 2 Statements and anchors for dimension 2 – knowledge diffusion and innovation


1 People are members of multiple communities, making it easier to diffuse knowledge and to innovate across the entire organisation

2 People who refuse to share knowledge do not get certain organisational benefits 3 Knowledge-sharing and innovation behaviour is built into the performance appraisal

system 4 Anyone who has an innovative idea can get support to follow it up 5 Knowledge diffusion is considered a standardised process within our organisation 6 Employees with experience are encouraged and motivated to play a mentoring role 7 The organisation transforms our working areas in order to assist deliberate knowledge

diffusion


5–7 The organisation promotes and seeks knowledge diffusion and innovation 3–5 Knowledge diffusion and innovation is not a deliberate organisational process and it is

not clear whether it takes place occasionally or on purpose 1–3 The organisation does not support knowledge diffusion within the workforce and has not

created an innovation-oriented environment

4.2.3 Life-long training attitude

The objective of the third dimension is to rate the extent to which the organisation

a considers workforce training as an important organisational asset

b the extent to which training is an established organisational process, aiming at the creation of a life-long training attitude.

Table 3 Statements and anchors for dimension 3 – life-long training attitude


1 The organisation supports and promotes in-company lifelong-training of the workforce 2 The organisation has hired somebody specialised in training of the workforce 3 In-company training programs are organised frequently by human resources department 4 Employees respond positively when they are called to participate in training programs 5 At some time or another, everyone in our organisation does ‘hands-on’ work to get

first-hand experience of the consequences of their decisions 6 Our organisation supports group activities that promote mutual learning 7 The organisation uses frequently experienced staff as training instructors


5–7 The organisation has managed to establish a life-long training attitude 3–5 Training is important for organisation, yet many things have to be done to establish a

life-long training attitude 1–3 Training is not a priority of the organisation


4.2.4 Construction of knowledge repositories

The objective of the fourth dimension is to rate the extent to which organisations

a store past knowledge within files, books and electronic media

b encourage all employees to contribute to maintaining knowledge-bases up to date.

Table 4 Statements and anchors for dimension 4 – knowledge repositories


1 The organisation has created electronic and paper-based tools which direct people to available resources

2 The organisation motivates employees to document, store and share valuable tacit knowledge using information technology structures

3 The electronic and physical places where we store our knowledge are kept up to date

4 Corporate information specialists help workforce to use online tools, including the internet, when store of active knowledge is to be performed

5 We have established technology-based ways for people to document and share information

6 Electronic and physical spaces where we store our knowledge have an intuitive structure that helps people direct their contributions

7 Our information technology systems connect us to information sources we need to do our work


5–7 The organisation considers as a main priority to document and store valuable knowledge resources using information technology structures

3–5 Storing past knowledge is not one of the first things to take care. In parallel, the organisation confronts difficulties using information technology for creating knowledge repositories

1–3 Storing knowledge by using information technology is something that the organisation is not familiar with

4.2.5 Knowledge-based decision making systems

The objective of the fourth dimension is to rate the extent to which organisation uses knowledge-based decision making systems in shaping its strategy.

Overall, the proposed model for modelling and benchmarking organisational memory is a tool that may help organisations either to create an organisational memory pattern, or to help them benchmark their organisational memory capability. Under this framework, our proposed model has been tested as a benchmarking tool in four business sectors in Greece.


Table 5 Statements and anchors for dimension 5 – knowledge-based decision making


1 We build models of our decision-making systems, using advanced technology to better understand why things happen the way they do

2 The organisation uses information technology (IT)-based decision-making systems, connecting them in parallel with past successful and unsuccessful projects’ feedback

3 Reflecting on lessons learned from work experiences is an established practice in our organisation

4 When people finish projects, they generally take the time to meet with their team and analyse what went wrong and what could have been done better

5 Before we fix problems, we consider the overall context in which the problem occurred and we also update our decision-making systems

6 We form our strategic goals using advanced decision-making systems 7 We have established problem solving procedures based on past corporate knowledge and

on information technology structures Anchors for dimension 5

5–7 The organisation uses and keeps up-to-date advanced decision-making systems based on past corporate knowledge

3–5 The use of knowledge-based decision making systems is limited 1–3 The organisation is not familiar either with knowledge-based decision-making systems

or with information technology for the purpose of shaping future strategy

5 Implications in Greek business sectors

The proposed model for modelling and benchmarking organisational memory has been tested, for demonstrative reasons, in four Greek business sectors. In particular, we benchmarked organisational memory in sixteen companies from four different sectors.

5.1 Sample selection

According to our view, the initial testing of our model should be focused on crucial business sectors which play a significant role in the development of Greek economy. In this respect, we decided to approach the four, most profitable sectors. The first sector was construction companies, the second insurance companies, the third food industries and the last consulting firms. The selection of the companies that would participate in the research was done according to their market share in Greece. In more detail, the total market share of the construction companies that took part in the research was 42%, the market share of the insurance companies was 36%, the market share of the food industries was 26% and the market share of the consulting firms was 29%.

5.2 Methodology

The proposed model was introduced, discussed and employed within the companies that participated in the research, in four successive steps:

a e-mail contact


b face to face interviews

c presentation of the tool within each company’s board

d collection of the results.

In more detail, we sent out our benchmarking tool by e-mail to a selected number of companies, based on the market share that they hold in the Greek market. From all contacts, a portion of 90% responded to our proposal and accepted a first face to face meeting. The face to face meeting was scheduled with a member of the company board, and in particular with an executive who has a clear view and understanding of the company’s status regarding organisational memory and knowledge management practices. In this framework, the face to face meetings were organised as open interviews, where the basic principles of the proposed tool were discussed, in parallel with the current situation within the organisations, regarding the knowledge management practices.

After the face to face meeting, the responsible executive took on the responsibility to introduce our model in the company’s board, which was scheduled on a normal basis (once per month in most cases). Then, the participants discussed the five dimensions of our model and noted their answers, using the proposed anchors. This procedure, in most cases, as we have learned afterwards was not easy to be completed because there were many disagreements during the discussions. However, the whole sample managed to complete the review of our benchmarking tool on time and with the maximum possible consensus (exceeded 90% in all cases).

Finally, data collection was scheduled right after the discussion of the model within each company’s board meeting. For this purpose, an additional meeting was arranged with the responsible executive along with a short interview/discussion. The topics of the discussion were the relevant experience within the board meeting and the possible outcome (e.g., benefits and practical implications).

5.3 Results

Organisational memory benchmarking results, according to the proposed model are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Organisational memory benchmarking results for four business sectors in Greece

Business sectors

Constructioncompanies

Insurancecompanies

Food industries

Consulting firms

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Cultural enhancement of employees’ relations

2.75 1.26 4.00 1.41 2.00 0.82 4.75 1.26

Knowledge diffusion and innovation environment

2.25 0.50 3.25 0.50 3.25 0.96 5.50 0.58

Life-long training attitude 1.75 0.50 4.50 0.58 4.00 0.82 2.50 0.58 Construction of knowledge repositories

3.75 1.26 2.00 0.82 5.00 1.41 1.50 0.82

Knowledge-base decision making system

3.50 1.29 4.50 1.73 1.50 0.58 5.25 0.96


Table 7 The model anchors for the four Greek business sectors

Mod

el d

imen

sion

s

Cul

tura

l enh

ance

men

t of

empl

oyee

s’ re

latio

ns

Kno

wle

dge

diffu

sion

and

in

nova

tion

envi

ronm

ent

Life

-long

trai

ning

at

titud

e C

onst

ruct

ion

of k

now

ledg

e re

posi

tori

es

Kno

wle

dge-

base

dec

isio

n m

akin

g sy

stem

Con

stru

ctio

n co

mpa

nies

Th

e or

gani

satio

n do

es n

ot

supp

ort c

ultu

ral e

nhan

cem

ent

of e

mpl

oyee

s’ re

latio

ns a

nd

wor

kfor

ce is

not

inte

rest

ed in

cr

eatin

g so

cial

con

tact

s

The

orga

nisa

tion

does

not

su

ppor

t kno

wle

dge

diff

usio

n w

ithin

the

wor

kfor

ce

and

has n

ot c

reat

ed a

n

inno

vatio

n-or

ient

ed

envi

ronm

ent

Trai

ning

is n

ot a

prio

rity

of th

e or

gani

satio

n St

orin

g pa

st k

now

ledg

e is

not

on

e of

the

first

thin

gs to

take

ca

re. I

n pa

ralle

l, th

e or

gani

satio

n co

nfro

nts d

iffic

ultie

s usi

ng

info

rmat

ion

tech

nolo

gy fo

r cr

eatin

g kn

owle

dge

repo

sito

ries

The

use

of k

now

ledg

e-ba

sed

deci

sion

mak

ing

syst

ems i

s lim

ited

Insu

ranc

e co

mpa

nies

It

is n

ot c

lear

whe

ther

or

gani

satio

n su

ppor

ts c

ultu

ral

enha

ncem

ent o

f em

ploy

ees’

re

latio

ns a

nd m

oreo

ver

wor

kfor

ce is

mod

erat

ely

inte

rest

ed in

cre

atin

g so

cial

re

latio

ns w

ith o

ne a

noth

er

Kno

wle

dge

diff

usio

n an

d in

nova

tion

is n

ot a

del

iber

ate

orga

nisa

tiona

l pro

cess

and

it

is n

ot c

lear

whe

ther

it ta

kes

plac

e oc

casi

onal

ly o

r on

purp

ose

Trai

ning

is im

porta

nt fo

r or

gani

satio

n, y

et m

any

thin

gs h

ave

to b

e do

ne

to e

stab

lish

a lif

e-lo

ng

train

ing

attit

ude

Stor

ing

know

ledg

e by

usi

ng

info

rmat

ion

tech

nolo

gy is

so

met

hing

that

the

orga

nisa

tion

is n

ot fa

mili

ar w

ith

The

use

of k

now

ledg

e-ba

sed

deci

sion

mak

ing

syst

ems i

s lim

ited

Food

in

dust

ries

The

orga

nisa

tion

does

not

su

ppor

t cul

tura

l enh

ance

men

t of

em

ploy

ees’

rela

tions

and

w

orkf

orce

is n

ot in

tere

sted

in

crea

ting

soci

al c

onta

cts

Kno

wle

dge

diff

usio

n an

d in

nova

tion

is n

ot a

del

iber

ate

orga

nisa

tiona

l pro

cess

and

it

is n

ot c

lear

whe

ther

it ta

kes

plac

e oc

casi

onal

ly o

r on

purp

ose

Trai

ning

is im

porta

nt fo

r or

gani

satio

n, y

et m

any

thin

gs h

ave

to b

e do

ne

to e

stab

lish

a lif

e-lo

ng

train

ing

attit

ude

Stor

ing

past

kno

wle

dge

is n

ot

one

of th

e fir

st th

ings

to ta

ke

care

. In

para

llel,

the

orga

nisa

tion

conf

ront

s diff

icul

ties u

sing

in

form

atio

n te

chno

logy

for

crea

ting

know

ledg

e re

posi

torie

s

The

orga

nisa

tion

is n

ot fa

mili

ar

eith

er w

ith k

now

ledg

e-ba

sed

deci

sion

-mak

ing

syst

ems o

r w

ith in

form

atio

n te

chno

logy

for

the

purp

ose

of sh

apin

g fu

ture

st

rate

gy

Business sectors Con

sulti

ng

firm

s It

is n

ot c

lear

whe

ther

or

gani

satio

n su

ppor

ts c

ultu

ral

enha

ncem

ent o

f em

ploy

ees’

re

latio

ns a

nd m

oreo

ver

wor

kfor

ce is

mod

erat

ely

inte

rest

ed in

cre

atin

g so

cial

re

latio

ns w

ith o

ne a

noth

er

The

orga

nisa

tion

prom

otes

an

d se

eks k

now

ledg

e di

ffus

ion

and

inno

vatio

n

Trai

ning

is n

ot a

prio

rity

of th

e or

gani

satio

n St

orin

g kn

owle

dge

by u

sing

in

form

atio

n te

chno

logy

is

som

ethi

ng th

at th

e or

gani

satio

n is

not

fam

iliar

with

The

orga

nisa

tion

uses

and

ke

eps u

p-to

-dat

e ad

vanc

ed

deci

sion

-mak

ing

syst

ems

base

d on

pas

t cor

pora

te

know

ledg

e


Additionally, the anchors, used to identify the situation within each business sector, are presented in Table 7.

The rating on the five dimensions of the model, when plotted on a radiating graph, reveal distinctive profiles. Figure 5 combines the profiles of the four business sectors on a radiating graph.

Figure 5 The holistic model of organisational memory (see online version for colours)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Cultural enhancement of

employees’ relations

Knowledge diffusion and innovation environment

Life-long training attitude

Construction of knowledge repositories

Knowledge-base decision making

system

Construction Companies

Insurance Companies

Food Industries

Consulting Firms

5.4 Discussion

The results presented above reveal several contradictions and are an indicative index of the current Greek business environment. However, literature research could not reveal similar researches in the same business sectors.

Nevertheless, our findings indicate that consulting firms manage to exhibit better performance regarding the dimensions of knowledge-base decision making system, cultural enhancement of employees’ relations and knowledge diffusion and innovation environment, while they are found to score relatively low in the other two dimensions.

A possible explanation for this, according also to the discussions we had with management executives, is that consulting firms in Greece demonstrate a high rate of personnel recycling. Thus, life-long training and knowledge repositories cannot be effectively programmed. However, consulting firms, due to their intellectual expertise in market, manage to score higher regarding the other three dimensions of the model.

In contrast, food industries seem to invest on the construction of knowledge repositories and on long-life training attitude, possibly because of the fact that those two dimensions of the model have been characterised as critical from the executives that performed the benchmarking. In addition, lifelong-training and knowledge repositories are considered important enablers of valuable resources sustainability in industrial


environments (Tsirikas and Nicolaidis, 2009). In the same pattern, insurance companies exhibit very low score in knowledge diffusion and knowledge repositories construction, yet scoring relatively higher in the other two dimensions.

Another important outcome is that construction companies seem to deal with great difficulties regarding the dimensions of the model, scoring in average lower than the other three business sectors. A possible explanation lies in the fact that construction sectors are in the middle of a phenomenal crisis, which in turn results in the negligence of major business processes.

Based now on the results presented in Table 7, we can identify more clearly the several contradictions between the different business sectors as far as it concerns the anchors used in the research model. In particular, we identify that consulting companies on the one hand try to create a knowledge diffusion environment, while on the other hand construction companies do now show any interest in this direction. This outcome is mainly explained due to the fact that the two business sectors have a completely different orientation. For instance, consulting firms invest in knowledge preservation within their organisations, playing in parallel the tutor role for their clients. In conjunction, construction firms do not seem to be interested in preserving knowledge mainly, because of the recent crisis that forced them to neglect significant business processes, but also because of the fact that construction works are solely perceived as projects. In this respect, the concept of project is significantly critical. Projects have always project managers that focus only in their specific area of interest. In this framework, a construction company looses a great amount of knowledge, somewhere between different business projects, failing in parallel to identify issues, facts and figures on a cross project basis.

In the same context, consulting firms invest in knowledge-based decision making systems, while on the opposite, food industries do not show particular interest in this specific dimension. This can partly justified if we take a closer look at the food industry ‘way of doing things’. This business sector refers mainly to automated factories, with continuous production lines, sometimes on a 24-hour basis, which at the end implies an automated environment where decisions are already prescribed, without having the need to look deeper into everyday issues to alter future decisions and behaviours. Further, time limits are too narrow, and decisions are already prescribed, without the need of building a sophisticated decision making system. Those companies have been working and will continue working in the same pattern for long periods, without changing much in their production lines, mainly because of economy scale issues and also because of high investment costs.

Further, food industries show a moderate interest in knowledge repositories, in conjunction with the corresponding interest in consulting firms. This partly is based on the fact that production lines need probably broaden tanks of knowledge in order to identify and solve production issues (technological and administrative issues) while, consulting firms, being forced to overcome a personnel recycling problem, do not have the luxury of building knowledge tanks in this functioning context.

Based on the above, as a general strategy we would suggest that food industries and construction companies should follow the dimension statements presented above, in order to have the chance to improve their organisational memory capability and to be in a position to gain a sustainable competitive advantage (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Iandoli and Zollo, 2008). In addition, insurance companies and consulting firms should follow specific steps in order to enrich their knowledge repositories. Such steps involve


the use of advanced IT systems special for knowledge storage and the encouragement of workforce to contribute to knowledge preservation.

Overall, the proposed model can be considered as a functional tool to model and benchmark organisational memory. The main limitation of the study lies upon the relatively small sample of businesses examined, which impedes us from delivering more accurate results and proposing more appropriate measures. In this respect, the model has to be tested using significantly greater samples from different business sectors, revealing in parallel more reliable outcomes.

6 Conclusions

Organisational memory is an organisational function in which organisational knowledge is stored and retrieved for present and future use. Thus, it contributes importantly to the processes of designing and creating the future of the organisation. Although it has been an interesting research field for scientists, many aspects remain unclear and contradictory. We hope that the article has provided insight into these aspects and has recommended a pluralistic stance to them, proposing a functional and in parallel a simple model for formulating and benchmarking organisational memory as well. After all, identifying and understanding knowledge is the first step to managing it effectively (Allee, 2002).

References Ackerman, M.S. (1994) ‘Definitional and conceptual issues in organizational and group memories’,

Paper presented at the 27th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS 1994), 4–7 January 1994, Hawaii, USA.

Ackerman, M.S. and Halverson, C. (1998) ‘Considering an organization’s memory’, Paper presented at the CSCW’98 International Conference. ACM 1998 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14–18 November 1998, Seattle, Washington.

Allee, V. (2002) The Future of Knowledge: Increasing Prosperity Through Value Networks, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.

Anand, V., Manz, C. and Glick, W.H. (1998) ‘An organizational memory approach to information management’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.796–809.

Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978) Organizational Learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Ashcraft, M.H. (1994) Human Memory and Cognition, Harper Collins College Publishers,

New York. Atkinson, R.C. and Shiffrin, R.M. (1968) ‘Human memory: a proposed system and its control

processes’, in Spence, K.W. (Ed.): The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, pp.89–195, Academic Press, New York.

Beer, S. (1985) Designing the System for Organizations, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Bennet, A. and Bennet, D. (2004) Organizational Survival in the New World,

Butterworth-Heinemann, USA. Borghoff, U. and Pareschi, R. (1998) Information Technology for Knowledge Management,

Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. Brickner, M.S. and Lipshitz, R. (2004) Pilot Study: System Model of Situation Awareness:

‘Sensemaking’ and Decision Making in Command and Control, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Ohio.


Carlson, N.R. (1994) The Physiology of Behavior, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Cook, S.D.N. and Yanov, D. (1993) ‘Culture and organizational learning’, Journal of Management

Inquiry, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.373–390. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What

they Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Deutsch, K. (1966) The Nerves of Government, The Free Press, New York. Dimasio, A. (2000) The Feeling of What Happens: Body, Emotion and the Meaning of

Consciousness, Heinemann, London. El Sawy, O.A., Gomes, G.M. and Gonzalez, M.V. (1986) ‘Preserving institutional memory: the

management of history as an organizational resource’, Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, Vol. 37, pp.118–122.

Gherardi, S. (2006) Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace Learning, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.

Gray, P.H. (2001) ‘A problem-solving perspective on knowledge management practices’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.87–102.

Haberlandt, K. (1997) Cognitive Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Hoog, R.D. and Spek, R.V.D. (1997) ‘Knowledge management: hope or hype?’, Expert Systems

with Applications, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.v–vi. Iandoli, L. and Zollo, G. (2008) Organizational Cognition and Learning, Information Science

Publishing, Hershey, PA. Jasimuddin, S.M., Connell, N.A.D. and Klein, J.H. (2006) ‘Understanding organizational memory’,

The Encyclopaedia of Knowledge Management, pp.870–875, Idea Publishing Ltd., USA. Kuhn, O. and Abecker, A. (1998) ‘Corporate memories for knowledge management in industrial

practice: prospects and challenges’, in Borghoff, U.M. and Pareschi, R. (Eds.): Information Technology for Knowledge Management, pp.183–206, Springer, Berlin.

Kwok, S.H. and Gao, S. (2004) ‘Knowledge sharing community in P2P network: a study of motivational perspective’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.94–102.

Liebowitz, J. and Megbolugbe, I. (2003) ‘A set of frameworks to aid the project manager in conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management initiatives’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.189–198.

Luria, A.R. (1973) The Working Brain: An Introduction to Neuropsychology, Penguin Books, London.

Maier, R. (2002) Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for knowledge management, Springer, Heidelberg.

Marsh, C.H. and Morris, E.C. (2001) ‘Corporate memory and technical communicators: a relationship with a new urgency’, Paper presented at the IPCC 2001. International Professional Communication Conference, 24–27 October 2001, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Milner, B. (1966) ‘Amnesia following operation on the temporal lobes’, in Whitty, C.W.M. and Zangwill, O.L. (Eds.): Amnesia, Butterworth, London.

More, E. (1998) ‘The role of communication in current debates on knowledge management’, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.353–361.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University, New York.

O’Toole, P. (2011) How Organizations Remember. Retaining Knowledge through Organizational Action, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg.

Olfman, L. (1998) Organizational Memory Systems: Are they Real? A Virtual Conference Transcript [online] http://www2.cis.temple.edu/isworld/vmc/april98/olfman/default.htm (accessed 18 March 2002).


Olivera, F. (2000) ‘Memory systems in organizations: an empirical investigation of mechanisms for knowledge collection, storage and access’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp.811–832.

Pearn, M., Roderick, C. and Mulrooney, C. (1995) Learning Organizations in Practice, McGraw-Hill, London-New York.

Perret, R., Borges, M.R.S. and Santoro, F.M. (2004) ‘Applying group storytelling in knowledge management’, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3198, pp.34–41.

Randall, D., O’Brien, J., Rounefield, M. and Hughes, J.A. (1996) ‘Organizational memory and CSCW: supporting the ‘Mavis phenomenon’’, Paper presented at the 6th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OZCHI’96), 24–27 November 1996, Washington, DC,USA.

Riva, G. and Galimberti, C. (1998) ‘Computer-mediated communication: identity and social interaction in an electronic environment’, Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 124, pp.434–464.

Schwartz, D.G., Divitini, M. and Brasethvik, T. (2000) Internet-based Organizational Memory and Knowledge Management, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.

Shallice, T. and Warrington, E.K. (1970) ‘Independent functioning of verbal memory stores: a neuropsychological study’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.261–273.

Sherif, K. (2002) Barriers to Adoption of Organizational Memories: Lessons from Industry, Thompson Learning, London.

Spender, J.C. (1995) ‘Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in search of a theory’, Journal of Organizational Change and Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.63–78.

Stein, E.W. (1995) ‘Organizational memory: review of concepts and recommendations for management’, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.17–32.

Stein, E.W. and Zwass, V. (1995a) ‘Actualizing organizational memory with information systems’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.85–117.

Stein, E.W. and Zwass, V. (1995b) ‘Analyzing organizational memory with information systems’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.285–314.

Te’eni, D. and Wienberger, H. (2000) ‘Systems development of organizational memory: a literature survey’, in H.R. Hansen, M. Bicher and H. Mahrer (Eds.): Proceedings of ECIS 2000, Vienna, Austria, July, pp.219–226.

Tsirikas, A. and Nicolaidis, C. (2009) ‘The impact of industrial training on railways employees and its influence on the average productivity rate’, Paper presented at the NHIBE, 2009 International Conference on New Horizons in Industry, Business and Education, 27–28 August 2009, Santorini, Greece.

Tuomi, I. (1999) ‘Data is more than knowledge: implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.103–117.

Ungson, G.R., Braunstein, D.N. and Hall, P.D. (1981) ‘Managerial information processing: a research review’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.116–134.

Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991) ‘Organizational memory’, Academy of Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.57–81.

Weick, K. (1979) ‘Cognitive processes in organizations’, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.41–74.

Weick, K. (1993) ‘The collapse of sensemaking in organisations: the Mann Gulch disaster’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp.628–652.

Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in Organisations, Sage Publications, London.


Weick, K. (1996) ‘Prepare your organisation to fight fires’, Harvard Business Review, May–June, pp.143–148.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wilson, F.A. (1997) ‘The brain and the firm: Perspectives on the networked organization and the cognitive metaphor’, Paper presented at the 3rd International Pacific Asia Conference of Information Systems (PACIS 1997), The Confluence of Theory and Practice, 1–5 April 1997, Brisbane, Australia.

Modelling and benchmarking organisations’ memory capabilities · 30 years from scientists across...

Documents

Transcript of Modelling and benchmarking organisations’ memory capabilities · 30 years from scientists across...