**2. Review of literature**

In the next paragraph we present a review of the literature for the two disciplines that are studied in this chapter, knowledge management and organizational learning, and discuss the various theories and approaches on how organizations acquire knowledge and its relationship with organizational learning.

#### **2.1 Knowledge management**

The information is the result of the interpretation of data resulting from the observation (Buckland, 1991), however the next cognitive level, knowledge, represents a contribution of value-added to information: theoretical and practical understanding of a subject, synthesis process in which the information is compared to another and combined to establish meaningful relationships, applied information or the result of adding the experience to information. In addition, the various representations of knowledge (observations, rules, procedures, guidelines) have to be interpreted by the people, putting knowledge in context to apply it when necessary to act in a certain situation (Lueg, 2002). However, the acquisition and interpretation of knowledge in organizations is a complex matter, in so far as it is not presented as a monolithic image, but as an heterogeneous and dynamic system of different knowledge (Bonifacio et al., 2000) that are dynamically created in time (Newell, 1982).

Although there is no unique definition of Knowledge Management (KM) universally accepted, it should be noted some especially interesting. Lueg (2002) refers to KM as the discipline that deals with the collection and dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of an organization and the people who make and Swan et al. (1999) defines it as any process or

In this chapter we will explain how companies can develop organizational learning programs based on an adequate strategy of acquiring knowledge through the analysis of the experiences of its activity, a strategy which at the same time is based on the communication processes, sharing of knowledge, workflow management and collaboration. This work presents a model of knowledge acquisition and organizational learning that can serve as reference and be applied in different companies to improve their operational and management processes. The model is based on processes developed by the nuclear industry

Following the chapter deepens first on the acquisition of knowledge in organizations and their relationship to organizational learning, for which a review of literature on the subject is realized by taking as a focus the experience based learning. Secondly, it discusses the need to establish formal procedures in organizations of knowledge acquisition in order to develop organizational learning, procedures that can be implemented with the help of techniques to design and specify complex workflow based on collaboration and sharing of knowledge. In this regard, it is presented workflow and Petri nets as a suitable technique for the specification of workflow processes with these characteristics. Then it is developed a methodology that enables organizations to implement a program of acquiring knowledge based on the phases of communication of experiences, event analysis, evaluation and implementation of improvement actions. This methodology of work it is formally specified as a learning model based on operating experience of the organization, a model that has been successfully implemented in the nuclear industry and can be applied to other

In the next paragraph we present a review of the literature for the two disciplines that are studied in this chapter, knowledge management and organizational learning, and discuss the various theories and approaches on how organizations acquire knowledge and its

The information is the result of the interpretation of data resulting from the observation (Buckland, 1991), however the next cognitive level, knowledge, represents a contribution of value-added to information: theoretical and practical understanding of a subject, synthesis process in which the information is compared to another and combined to establish meaningful relationships, applied information or the result of adding the experience to information. In addition, the various representations of knowledge (observations, rules, procedures, guidelines) have to be interpreted by the people, putting knowledge in context to apply it when necessary to act in a certain situation (Lueg, 2002). However, the acquisition and interpretation of knowledge in organizations is a complex matter, in so far as it is not presented as a monolithic image, but as an heterogeneous and dynamic system of different knowledge (Bonifacio et al., 2000) that are dynamically created in time

Although there is no unique definition of Knowledge Management (KM) universally accepted, it should be noted some especially interesting. Lueg (2002) refers to KM as the discipline that deals with the collection and dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of an organization and the people who make and Swan et al. (1999) defines it as any process or

and is the result of the strict regulation and controls of its activity.

companies. Finally, we present the conclusions and future lines of work.

**2. Review of literature** 

**2.1 Knowledge management** 

(Newell, 1982).

relationship with organizational learning.

practice of creating, acquiring, sharing and use of knowledge to improve learning and performance of organizations.

Some authors relate the knowledge management with learning in organizations (Nonaka and Johansson, 1985; Huber, 1991; Quinn, 1992), in this sense Dodgson, (1993) links the Organizational Learning (OL) with the ways in which companies build, increase and organize the knowledge and, Sánchez and Heene, (1997) associate it with the processes of creating new knowledge in the bosom of individuals and groups within a company, and processes to effectively enhance the knowledge within the organization. Organizational learning is linked to the processes through which the organization creates knowledge or expands the knowledge base that has, line in which are also located the contributions of Nonaka, who considers knowledge creation as the central core of organizational learning (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Ichijo, 1997; Nonaka, et al., 1998).

Other authors that relate KM in the organization with the concept of organizational learning make it from different points of view: Amponsem (1991) associates organizational learning to the process through which individual knowledge becomes in knowledge of the entire organization; Marengo (1991) considers organizational learning as the process of generating new organizational competencies that involve knowledge creation in turn; Andreu and Ciborra (1994), Revilla (1995) and Andreu and Sieber (1998) associate organizational learning with the process of problem solving that enables to expand the knowledge base of the organization through the incorporation of the generated knowledge.

From the management point of view, the inclusion of the organizations into the knowledge economy requires the reorganization that allows them to integrate the knowledge in their conventional operation in order to convert it in a true strategic active (González et al., 2009). The recent literature shows the explanatory power of knowledge management on the organizational performance (Pedraja et al., 2009) what makes knowledge management a fundamental discipline for business competitiveness. Organizational effectiveness requires achieve an effective integration of specialized knowledge (Grant, 1996) that together with the management of intangible assets are key factors for obtaining competitive advantages by organizations (Teece, 1998).

Finally, within the literature review, a series of recent works of special interest are included below, analysing various issues relating to knowledge management.

### **2.2 Organizational learning**

The concept of OL is taking a significant rise in both the academic and business context, by contributing to the improvement of the understanding of organizations and their activities. However, organizational learning is faced with a relative lack of empirical works, and in particular of case studies, to try to induce theory from practice.

The organizational learning literature has taken mainly two perspectives (Durand et al. 1996; Von Krogh, 1998; Easterby-Smith et al. 1998; Gherardi, 1999): the cognitive (or perceptual) and the social (or constructive). Spender (1996 a), Backler (1995), Cook and Brown (1999) also identify two approaches about the nature of knowledge; which emphasized that the knowledge is or has and the one who believes that knowledge is created, i.e. it is a process. These perspectives and approaches are related, so two fundamental approaches can be considered: the cognitive-possession and the social process.

The cognitive perspective takes two orientations (Cook and Yanow, 1996); the first that focuses the learning of the organizations in the processes of learning of individuals and assumes that organizations can learn as they have the same or similar skills that the

Assessment of Operational Experience as Strategy

they do, which is constantly built and developed.

methods (Moreno and Pelayo, 2007).

Krogh et al., 1994).

others know, but join and integrate their knowledge (Grant, 1996).

or that are acquired through the surveillance activities of competition.

**3. Processes specification: Workflow and Petri nets** 

which knowledge is shared between different organizations.

for Knowledge Acquisition and Learning in Organizations 133

Duguid, 1991; Blackler, 1993; Weick and Roberts, 1993; Weick and Westley, 1996; Cook and Yanow, 1996; Spender, 1996 b; Sánchez and Heene, 1997; Dixon, 1994; Gherardi and Nicolini, 2000), is not based on the individual but arises from social interactions and is acquired through participation in the daily practice of the organization. Focuses on the way in which people interpret or give meaning to their work experiences. The social perspective understands the knowledge as a process of construction or creation. In this sense, the activity theory of Vygotsky (1962) maintains that the knowledge is continuously evolving and considers that it is not something that people and organizations have but something

On the other hand, Hendlund (1994) and Nonaka (1994) studied the interaction between individual and collective knowledge and how the individual knowledge contributes to the collective. In this sense, it is not necessary that the members of the organization learn what

The literature of the organizational learning is also referred to the concept "learning organization" (Senge, 1990; Goh and Richards, 1997; Leonard, 1992; Ulrich et al., 1993) in reference to the organizations that have institutionalized processes of reflection and evaluation that allows them to acquire a new competence, learning to learn, and create shared knowledge. A learning organization is one that builds intentionally structures and strategies to maximize organizational learning (Dogson, 1993) and formalizes learning

The knowledge of an organization is continuously created through activities that are developed (Tsoukas, 1996) and the people for their participation in the same accumulate knowledge through experience (Nonaka, 1994). Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience (Kolb, 1984). However, these aspects while necessary, are not sufficient, since the organizational knowledge should be shared, it is conditioned by people can establish formal and informal relations and the need of an evaluation from the observation of the organization of itself (Von

In this sense, the organizations which are willing to implement the management of knowledge, must be able to collect in a formal way the experience of the organization, which is ultimately determined by the interaction between people and their organizational structures, and between the organization and its environment (companies of the same sector of activity, customers and suppliers). The experiences that in an organization contribute to a greater extent to the acquisition of knowledge and organizational learning originate in the activity itself that this develops, materialized across their business processes, but also on the experiences and knowledge shared with other organizations (enterprises in the same sector),

A business process can be defined as the set of activities and performances to be carried out in an integrated manner to achieve a more general organizational goal. These processes are usually performed within an organizational structure in which there are various functional roles and hierarchical relationships. A process can be developed entirely in a single business unit or can be applied to various and even to different organizations (inter-organizational processes) as the processes with customers and suppliers, or collaborative processes in


Table 1. Review of recent literature on KM

individuals (Cyert and March, 1963; Daft and Weick, 1984; Levitt and March, 1988; Weick, 1991), while the second considers the organizational learning as the learning from individuals in organizational contexts (Simon, 1991; March and Olsen, 1976; Shrivastava, 1983). The organizational learning is perceived as something more than the sum of individual learning of its members, while emphasizing the key role of individuals and their learning (Huysman, 1999).

In the social perspective, learning has a relational character that takes on special importance the context and the dynamics of organizational change (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Brown and

Knowledge processes explain the critical intangible resources and the essential capabilities for organisational achievement.

Identify the critical success factors that can act as a list of items for SMEs to address

organizational learning and knowledge integration; levels of organizational learning, knowledge integration, and KM capability have significant impact on a

The KM promotes organizational learning.

Learning processes contribute to the improvement of business processes.

when adopting KM.

firm's innovation.

process effectiveness.

individuals (Cyert and March, 1963; Daft and Weick, 1984; Levitt and March, 1988; Weick, 1991), while the second considers the organizational learning as the learning from individuals in organizational contexts (Simon, 1991; March and Olsen, 1976; Shrivastava, 1983). The organizational learning is perceived as something more than the sum of individual learning of its members, while emphasizing the key role of individuals and their

In the social perspective, learning has a relational character that takes on special importance the context and the dynamics of organizational change (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Brown and

KM capability could enhance

The technological, human and organizational factors are enablers of organizational learning (model Thalec).

Significant interactions were found between KM success factors (business strategy, K audit, K map, KM team) and KM elements of strategies (technology, culture, leadership, measurement) with KM

Develop a framework for leadership in organizational knowledge creation based on three layers: a core layer of local knowledge creation; a layer that provides the resources and context; and a structural layer that forms the overall frame and direction for knowledge creation.

**Author Objective of the study Main result** 

Design a model for the analysis of the conceptual relationships between business processes and knowledge processes.

and medium enterprises

interrelationships among KM capability and

Integrate in a model of internal knowledge management the human, technological and organizational focus.

Explore KM performance measurement from the angle of KM process

Investigate the leadership

Develop a strategic contingency model to

Kuan (2005) Studies the KM in small

(SMEs)

identify the

innovation

effectiveness

in organizational knowledge creation

Table 1. Review of recent literature on KM

learning (Huysman, 1999).

Bueno et al. (2004)

Teresa et al. (2006)

Moreno and Pelayo (2007)

Chin and Siong (2009)

Krogh, Nonaka and Rechsteiner (2011)

Duguid, 1991; Blackler, 1993; Weick and Roberts, 1993; Weick and Westley, 1996; Cook and Yanow, 1996; Spender, 1996 b; Sánchez and Heene, 1997; Dixon, 1994; Gherardi and Nicolini, 2000), is not based on the individual but arises from social interactions and is acquired through participation in the daily practice of the organization. Focuses on the way in which people interpret or give meaning to their work experiences. The social perspective understands the knowledge as a process of construction or creation. In this sense, the activity theory of Vygotsky (1962) maintains that the knowledge is continuously evolving and considers that it is not something that people and organizations have but something they do, which is constantly built and developed.

On the other hand, Hendlund (1994) and Nonaka (1994) studied the interaction between individual and collective knowledge and how the individual knowledge contributes to the collective. In this sense, it is not necessary that the members of the organization learn what others know, but join and integrate their knowledge (Grant, 1996).

The literature of the organizational learning is also referred to the concept "learning organization" (Senge, 1990; Goh and Richards, 1997; Leonard, 1992; Ulrich et al., 1993) in reference to the organizations that have institutionalized processes of reflection and evaluation that allows them to acquire a new competence, learning to learn, and create shared knowledge. A learning organization is one that builds intentionally structures and strategies to maximize organizational learning (Dogson, 1993) and formalizes learning methods (Moreno and Pelayo, 2007).

The knowledge of an organization is continuously created through activities that are developed (Tsoukas, 1996) and the people for their participation in the same accumulate knowledge through experience (Nonaka, 1994). Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience (Kolb, 1984). However, these aspects while necessary, are not sufficient, since the organizational knowledge should be shared, it is conditioned by people can establish formal and informal relations and the need of an evaluation from the observation of the organization of itself (Von Krogh et al., 1994).

In this sense, the organizations which are willing to implement the management of knowledge, must be able to collect in a formal way the experience of the organization, which is ultimately determined by the interaction between people and their organizational structures, and between the organization and its environment (companies of the same sector of activity, customers and suppliers). The experiences that in an organization contribute to a greater extent to the acquisition of knowledge and organizational learning originate in the activity itself that this develops, materialized across their business processes, but also on the experiences and knowledge shared with other organizations (enterprises in the same sector), or that are acquired through the surveillance activities of competition.
