Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation: Principles, Process, and Practice of Qualitative Data [1st ed.] 9789811597923, 9789811597930

Citation preview

Preethi Kesavan

Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Principles, Process, and Practice of Qualitative Data

Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation

Preethi Kesavan

Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Principles, Process, and Practice of Qualitative Data

123

Preethi Kesavan Maritime Industry Service Sector Atkei International Pte. Ltd. Singapore, Singapore School of Information Systems (SIS) Singapore Management University Singapore, Singapore

ISBN 978-981-15-9792-3 ISBN 978-981-15-9793-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

This book advances a framework, a qualitative data collection process, and text analytics compositional approaches accessible to students, researchers, university professors, business practitioners, industry leaders, or any self-learners. Qualitative research approach helps students, researchers, industry practitioners, and university professors for investigating the factors that influence organisational learning, knowledge management and innovation in dispersed team members to improve performance at work. Several management research and almost all information systems articles published continue to examine the outcomes of quantitative studies. The gap between the attention and taking on qualitative approaches may be due to unfamiliarity for analysing large amount of text and qualitative data. It may also be due to presumption that only quantitative results are positivist approach. Thus, adopting the qualitative methodology via text analytics will be an innovative approach in management studies, information systems research, social science studies for industry practitioners too. The main benefit the readers would benefit is to gain insights about data collection process, application of text mining, text analytics process, and adopting qualitative methods in investigating the factors that influence learning, knowledge management and innovation in dispersed teams in organisation. Readers and organisational practitioners will find numerous implications for both managers and employees working in organisational teams, and authors in the academic environment too. The novelty lies in which the elements suggested are integrated by people in certain settings is to some extent different each time. This is not same always as found in organisational members’ experiences or what is written in the industry white papers depicting ceaseless picture. Practices may be differentiated within organisational context on many characteristics and mechanisms that enable OL, KM, and implementation of innovation. Thus, the practical implications suggest and depict sufficient space for variety in each organisation. These implications are discussed in detail in the conclusion chapter. The subject of the work is an integrative study undertaken by performing qualitative approach adopting text mining and text analytics in the domains of knowledge management, organisational learning, innovation in a workplace v

vi

Preface

environment to facilitate changes that improve business processes. In order to foster learning, manage knowledge and implement innovation, suggestions are provided in the chapters about how companies must make efforts to create an environment to support social interaction, develop their KM approaches, and execute innovation practices. This book presents seven chapters introducing the study and then developing a review of literature, methodology, and the methods used in data collection and analysis. The findings are then discussed with reference to the literature, and finally implications for future research and practice are presented. Chapter 1 situates the study in its larger context to examine the background central to the study. Chapter 2 offers information on the literature which serves as a contextualisation of the literature review and is presented after the introduction. This chapter brings forward OL, KM, and innovation highlighting their relationship. A discussion of geographically dispersed private education organisation is provided as it relates to the study settings, and conceptions of innovation are introduced as the factors influencing OL, KM, and innovation experiences are established on innovation concepts. This chapter further develops an argument to support the claim that the fields intersect in a number of areas. Moreover, this interrelationship is consistent with the central themes in innovation research. Thus, the need for current research is ascertained upon reviewing calls for research. An analysis of the literature in the fields of OL, KM, and innovation practices in a geographically dispersed environment shaped by the factors, characteristics, and mechanisms highlights the need for more understanding that focuses on examining the fields together. Chapter 3 describes the theory and the methodology. The calls for research and analysis inviting the author to explore areas that are not thoroughly explored is presented in reinforcing the necessity for performing this research project. A full description of all ‘the contextual factors impinging on the inquiry’, as recommended by Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 290), is described in Chap. 4. This chapter describes the organisation taking part in the study and where is it based, the type of people who contributed data, the number of participants involved in the fieldwork, the data collection methods that were employed, the number and length of the data collection sessions, and the time period over which the data was collected. Furthermore, this chapter describes the iterative process of collecting and analysing data. This is followed by details on the development of a research design that underpins the study. An introduction to the analysis of the factors influencing OL, KM, and innovation practices is established on innovation concepts which are presented in Chap. 4. The categorisations of findings from the participants’ sensemaking of terms and discussions are introduced. Chapter 5 details the research findings, which are analysed with particular attention on the perceived fit with the study’s conceptual framework. Each chapter presents features of the participants’ learning, KM, and innovation experiences in terms of innovation concepts. The relationship between the OL, KM, and innovation of the organisation emerges in a single framework. This Chap. 5 establishes social, architectural, and cultural innovation and highlights the notion that new and

Preface

vii

improvised OL, KM, and innovation practices among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation are consequences of these factors, characteristics, and mechanisms. In this study, OL, KM, and innovation practices are perceived as collaborative learning, knowledge-sharing mechanisms, and activities for managing knowledge in a geographically dispersed environment which produces new solutions, novel ways to solve problems, processes to practice and adopt, and practical implementation of innovation in organisational practices. In Chap. 6, the findings are discussed with reference to the literature, and the three major themes depicted in the findings are elaborated upon. Furthermore, the findings are compared and contrasted with published theoretical assumptions about the factors, characteristics, and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed environment. In this chapter, innovation has been fully explained in terms of how dynamic competitive systems can exhibit intricate interactions in organisations and social systems. The experiences of learning, KM, and innovation practices related through participants’ discourse are presented first. Following this, the ways in which the experiences reflect collaborated learning, knowledge-sharing mechanisms, and activities adopted for managing knowledge through the social interaction activities of organisational members for practically implementing innovation are discussed. This chapter also provides a brief overview of the implications of the findings for OL, KM, and innovation facilitation in the organisation. Finally, this chapter brings to a close with an analysis of the integrated model used to make significance of the findings. The book concludes with some comments about the research and its contribution to the understanding of organisational experience in Chap. 7. The end of the chapter suggests areas for further research and suggestions for employers and practitioners. This book provides a point of view on organisational experience that recognises the social characteristics, mechanisms, behaviour, and relationships of organisational members with each other and their work among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. It illustrates the detailed entwinement of OL, KM, and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed environment shaped by social, architectural, and cultural innovation factors and how they relate to each other. Eventually, one cannot be excluded from the other. Particularly, this book presents refreshing insights derived from the exploration of a PEI in Singapore and challenges the ambiguities in OL, managing knowledge, and innovation processes. This book presents how data is collected, analysed and offers to build theory about the factors influencing organisational learning (OL), knowledge management (KM), and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. Several recent studies have been found to scientifically examine that KM is an important driving factor influencing learning and subsequently innovativeness in an organisation. Although recent studies have examined the drivers to innovation, more needs to be explored about the enablers of OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team in organisations. This study addressed the aim of the research by putting forward an integrated discussion extending substantive theory as well as providing input into

viii

Preface

developing theories of innovation. The study used grounded theory as methodology. The methodological approach is based on innovation theory as a sensitising concept to simply to lay the foundation for the analysis of research data. In this study, innovation theory suggested directions in approaching empirical exploration of OL, KM, and innovation practices in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. The findings are based on the data obtained from a single private educational organisation which has offices dispersed across Singapore and across geographical boundaries in Asia. Data obtained through focus group discussions and interviews revealed about OL, KM, and innovation practices. The book offers the findings of the study that support the need for integrating OL, KM, and innovation to improve organisational performance. This study provides fuller perspectives about collective relationships and networks, organisational characteristics and structures, and tacit and overt values which organises the phenomenon being studied. The author developed new theory which is built on the discussion of three themes capturing the essence of experience drawn from varied situations and contexts from the data. First theme illustrates social relationship and networks that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team. Second theme discusses the knowledge-sharing mechanisms and activities that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team. Final theme argues the role of social cognitive schema among members of a geographically dispersed team that facilitates emergent learning, KM, and innovation. Furthermore, these themes are discussed with reference to the literatures across OL, KM, and innovation fields. This book presents emphasising the significance of an integrated model which illustrates about the enablers OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team to improve organisational performance. The study shows that team members’ experiences are greater experiences generated by individual learning. Knowledge is distributed, active, and socially developed by the network of human relations. Innovation is perceived as implementation of new ideas, skills, and practices. Learning, KM, and innovation experiences are intimately entwined in the practice of organisational members in a geographically dispersed educational organisation. As a result, a number of implications for future research, and practicing managers and employers are suggested to share context and share identity, encourage collaboration and ad hoc communications, collaborate through network of virtual and co-located teams, and to seek, and give feedback. This study established the factors that facilitate the relationship between OL, KM, and innovation in an integrated construction. Henceforth, this book presents the study indicating more integrated organisational practice. Singapore

Preethi Kesavan

Acknowledgements I dedicate this book to my husband Mugi, Sasha, Shriney, Ramya, Kavin, mum, and dad for their support of my dream. They are the inspiration for my writing and my life. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for being there for me.

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 3 3 5 5 6 7 10 12 14 16 17 19 19

2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Singapore’s Education System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Private Education Institutes in Singapore . 2.2.2 Competitive Advantage of PEIs . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Constraints for PEIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Organisational Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Defining Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Definition of OL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Impetus for Development of OL . . . . . . . 2.4 Contemporary Perspectives on OL . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Impetus for Development of KM . . . . . . 2.5.2 Contemporary Perspectives of KM . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 21 23 23 26 28 29 30 30 31 37 39 39 40

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Aim of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Background of Study . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 Organisational Learning . 1.5.2 Knowledge Management 1.5.3 Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Research Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 Significance of Study . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

x

Contents

2.6

Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Contemporary Perspectives of Innovation . . . . . . . . . 2.7 OL, KM, and Innovation in Geographically Dispersed Individuals and Team Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.1 OL, KM, and Innovation Mechanisms and Activities in Geographically Dispersed Individuals and Team Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.2 OL, KM, and Innovation in an Organisation with Emphasis on the Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.3 OL, KM, and Innovation in an Organisation with Emphasis on the Team Members . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.4 OL, KM, and Innovation in a Geographically Dispersed Organisation with Emphasis on Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.5 Developing Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Converging Discourses of OL, KM, and Innovation . . . . . . . . 2.8.1 Social Relationship and Networks Facilitates OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8.2 Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms and Activities Facilitates OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8.3 Social Cognitive Schema Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team Facilitate Emergent Learning, KM, and Innovation . . . . . . . . . . 2.8.4 Contemporary Perspectives on OL, KM, and Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Opportunity for New Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9.1 Calls for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Theory and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Developing a Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Epistemology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Identifying and Avoiding Bias by Evaluating the Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5 Credibility and Trustworthiness to Research Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. ..

42 43

..

44

..

45

..

46

..

47

.. .. ..

48 49 50

..

54

..

56

..

58

. . . .

. . . .

60 62 63 63

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

67 67 69 69 70 72 72 75 76

........

76

........

79

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

Contents

3.4

xi

3.3.6 Model and Metaphors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.7 Methodology Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Overview of Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Collective Learning Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Focus Group Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Semi-structured Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Focus Group Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Member Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.6 Personal Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.7 Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.8 Data Collection Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.9 On-Site Meeting and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.10 Data Substantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Grounded Theory of Learning, Knowledge and Innovation . . . 4.5.1 Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Conclusions on Constructions of Knowledge, Learning and Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Overview of Emerging Categories Forming a Theory . . . . . . . 4.7.1 Overview of Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.2 Characteristics and Mechanisms of Innovation Theory . 4.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation, and Cultural Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Social Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Social Innovation: Collective Relationships . . . . . 5.2.2 Social Innovation: Collective Networks . . . . . . . . 5.3 Social Innovation Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation . . . . . . 5.4.1 Architectural Innovation: Organisational Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Architectural Innovation: Organisational Structure

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

83 84 84

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85 85 86 86 87 90 91 92 92 93 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 109 112 112 116 121

. . . . .

. . . . .

123 123 124 124 132

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

135 135 136 138 151 159 160

. . . . . 165 . . . . . 174

xii

Contents

5.5 5.6

5.7

Architectural Innovation Conclusion . . . . . Introduction to Cultural Innovation . . . . . . 5.6.1 Cultural Innovation—Tacit Values 5.6.2 Cultural Innovation: Overt Values . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship of OL, KM, and Innovation in Geographically Dispersed Individuals and Team Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Social Relationship and Networks Facilitates OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms and Activities Facilitate OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Conclusions: Theory of the Factors Facilitating OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Theory Exposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Contribution of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Implications for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Social Relationship and Networks Facilitates OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of Geographically Dispersed Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms and Activities Facilitates OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 Social Cognitive Schema Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team Facilitate Emergent Learning, KM, and Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.4 Conclusions on Implications for Practice . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.5 Meeting Calls for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Limitations of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Originality and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

183 183 186 195 202

. . 205 . . 205

. . 208

. . 210

. . 224

. . 242 . . 243 . . . . .

. . . . .

245 245 247 252 253

. . 255

. . 256

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

258 260 260 261 261 262

Contents

xiii

Appendix A: Related Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Appendix B: Node Structure: Pattern of Categorisation of Research Data (Sample Extract) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

List of Figures

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3

Fig. 4.4

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1

Grounded theory research process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contextual semantic search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sentiment analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical model integrating characteristics and mechanisms facilitating OL, KM, and innovation experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model integrating social, architectural and cultural innovation factors, characteristics and mechanisms facilitating OL, KM, and innovation experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social innovation categories and coded data set . . . . . . . . . . . . Architectural invvoation core categories and coded data set . . . Cultural innovation categories and coded data set . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. 68 .. 99 . . 100

. . 109

. . . . .

. . . . .

110 139 164 187 208

xv

List of Tables

Table Table Table Table

1.1 2.1 2.2 3.1

Table Table Table Table Table Table

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table Table Table Table

5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1

Research question development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Different focuses in definitions of organisational learning . . . Calls for research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Generic strategies to address Guba’s (1981) four criteria for trustworthiness in this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five phases of data collection and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Codes developed prior to category development . . . . . . . . . . Codes developed during coding exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions derived from innovation theory extant literature . . Categories and properties of concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of activities in each KM process in the organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categories and properties of the concept ‘social innovation’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categories and properties of the concept ‘architectural innovation’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categories and properties of the concept ‘cultural innovation’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social innovation concept: hierarchy of themes . . . . . . . . . . . Architectural innovation concept: hierarchy of themes . . . . . . Cultural innovation concept: hierarchy of themes. . . . . . . . . . Summary of themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. .. .. . . . . . .

6 32 64

. 80 . 88 . 98 . 100 . 107 . 111

. . 121 . . 126 . . 130 . . . . .

. . . . .

131 136 160 184 206

xvii

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract Situates the study in its larger context to examine the background central to the study.

Trends in technology are observed in the twenty first century that has been dominated by the increased interconnectedness, transparency and speed. These trends require organisations to combine efficiency with flexibility and innovation (Palmberg, 2009; Sandberg & Targama, 2007; Turner, Zimmerman & Allen, 2012). Today’s world is becoming increasingly complex. World markets are currently under severe pressure as a result of a worldwide financial crisis, and business landscapes in all sectors and regions are changing. Many companies operate to survive for profitability (Fisser & Browaeys, 2010). McElroy (2000) stresses that OL has intense implications for business, in view of the fact that managing to out-learn one’s competitor leads to better performance, with new ideas translating into lowered costs, higher productivity and/or increased revenue. The role of OL and the rapid changes organisations face means that their knowledge becomes outdated and replaced with redundant competences (Sanz-Valle, Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez & Perez-Caballero, 2011). In this context, organisations need to be able to continuously renew their knowledge (Sanz-Valle et al., 2011). A clear understanding is required of what characteristics and mechanisms enable organisations to learn, manage knowledge and the factors that facilitate the process of OL, KM, and innovation processes in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Organisational learning (OL) about the acquisition of knowledge is presented in the extant literature and recent studies (Serenko, Bontis, Booker, Sadeddin, & Hardie, 2010). Some research has also looked at how acquired knowledge is shared in organisations (Argote, 2012; Berkes, 2009; Hsu, Ju, Yen, & Chang, 2007). Research has also shown that embedding OL in firms enable innovation (Johannessen & Skaalsvik, 2015; Senge, 1990). This suggests that embedding knowledge management (KM) in an organisation facilitates innovation (Chen, Lin, & Chang, 2009; Kamya, Ntayi, & Ahiauzu, 2011; Nonaka, 1995). Several studies (Darroch, 2005; Johannessen & Olsen, 2009; Quinn & Strategy, 2013) have been found to scientifically examine that KM and innovation provide competitive advantage for organisations.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0_1

1

2

1 Introduction

Kanchana, Law, Comepa, Malithong and Phusavat (2011) claimed that, in manufacturing firms, leadership support for KM are presented as an important driving factor influencing learning and subsequently innovativeness in an organisation. Several studies (Kamya et al., 2011; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013) based on a cross-sectional survey design looked at the relationship between OL and competitive advantage with the effect of KM and innovation. These studies also described the opportunities referring to the driving factors that influence learning and knowledge situated in a local office setting. These studies offered findings about the interrelationship of OL, KM and how OL and KM impact on innovation for achieving competitive advantage were explored. The need for an integrated approach about these three disciplines as compared to previous studies to explore their differences and similarities are areas not yet thoroughly researched. OL, KM, and innovation has been studied in various fields and industries such as manufacturing firms (Kanchana et al., 2011), public sectors (Kennedy, 2010), Spanish HR companies (Donate & Guadamillas, 2011), health care settings (Sheng et al., 2013) and even more fragmented is literature in the domain of higher education and vocational innovation education and training (Jarvi, 2012). Less attention has been paid to the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in distributed organisational members working in a private education organisation operating in a geographically dispersed environment. This research project offers OL, KM, and innovation as interrelated and an integrating device providing fuller perspectives rather than their separate investigation. This study attempts to provide comprehensive perceptions and presents an integrated discussion exploring the factors that enable OL, KM, and innovation experiences of participants and areas not yet thoroughly researched. Private education institution (PEI) is classified as private as it is controlled and managed by a non-governmental organisation such as a business enterprise (OECD, 2005). The education and infra-structure facilities of private educational organisations which offer foreign-linked programmes are a means to attract non-local students to study in Singapore and its associated campuses spread across the globe (Mok, 2008). More needs to be understood about the experiences of staff who work and exchange work related practices with their colleagues in such PEIs functioning in a geographically dispersed environment. The paucity of an integrated discussion in the extant literature highlights an important problem for organisations in search of more effective OL, KM, and innovation practices in the private educational organisations which are ‘geographically dispersed firms’ (Tzabbar & Vestal, 2014, p. 124). The outline of this book is presented in this first chapter and highlights the relationship between the research problem and the literature. The influence of the relationship on the research approach is also presented. The study describes the importance of both the advantages and reflections of OL, KM, and innovation (Kamya et al., 2011; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013).

1.1 Aim of Research

3

1.1 Aim of Research The aim of this research is to apply text mining and text analytics to build theory about the enablers of organisational learning, knowledge management and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in an educational organisation using grounded theory approach. The grounded theory methodology can direct authors to uncover the emergent catalysts of OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members produced through the experience in a private education organisation. Glaser and Strauss (1967) encourage deferring the literature review while waiting for the data collection to be complete. The connection of the literature review in a grounded theory research study has been a discussion that started with the grounded theorists (Charmaz, 2006). The difference is around the position of the literature review in the complete research development and not in the exploitation of a literature review. Thus, this study repeated the literature review only after data collection. The literature review was an important part of data analysis and was re-examined as a final check on the theory built. The study also provides a background for the progression of improved practice in OL, KM, and innovation facilitation in organisation.

1.1.1 Objectives The objectives of the research are to: • Explore the enablers of OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team adopting the grounded theory approach. • Build theory by elaborating the themes occurring from learning, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in an educational organisation. • Expound the relationships between emergent themes. • Apply the research methodology, text analytics process supported with innovation theory. This research has used NVivo and RapidMiner tools for text mining and analysing the data. NVivo and RapidMiner was used to automate the process of classifying texts.The software allows users to classify, sort and arrange information; examine relationships in the data; and combine analysis with linking, shaping, searching and modeling. It allows researcher to apply coding process to classify the categories, themes, topic, and intent. There are several text analysis tools such as MonkeyLearn, that create custom text analysis models; Aylien is a powerful API for text analysis; IBM Watson is an advanced text analytics tool; Thematic, to analyze customer feedback at scale; Google Cloud NLP to train your own Machine Learning model; Amazon Comprehend is a pre-trained NLP model; MeaningCloud, extract insights from unstructured text data, and Lexalytics that has text analytics libraries. The focus

4

1 Introduction

of this research is not about the software tools used, rather an application of text mining and text analysis process, framework, a qualitative data collection process, and qualitative data and text analysis compositional approaches applied in this study. With reference to MIS Quarterly manuscript categories at https://www.misq.org/ categories, this book‘s chapters concentrate on theory development by grounding in theory and practice which was used to develop new theory. The theory provides a description of the phenomena of interest, analysis of relationships among the constructs, the degree of generalizability in constructs and relationships and the boundaries within which relationships, and observations hold (MIS Quarterly (30:3), September 2006). The research focused on text data mining- qualitative approach. The research engaged in broad review and synthesis of the literature around the organizational members’ experience to generate theoretical advances and developed information systems (OL, KM, Innovation) theory through approaches comprehending novel constructs and relationships affecting to the organizational members’ phenomenon, problem, and solution; furthermore, the research drew on a novel theoretical lens and elaborated it given the unique characteristics of the phenomenon, problem, and solution; and also integrated multiple theoretical viewpoints into an organised and interrelated theory including integrative, inter- and intra-disciplinary theories. Experiences shared by the organisational members and their experiences as a collective allow the author to explore learning, KM and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members in order to gain unique and group perspectives of organisational phenomena. It provides for more holistic views, unlimited by distinct themes of inquiry and theoretically derived themes. Feldman (1989) regards sensemaking as an interpretive process that is indispensable for ‘organisational members to understand and to share understandings about such features of the organisation as, what it is about, what it does well and poorly, what the problems it faces are and how it should resolve them’ (p. 19). Sensemaking is the process of forming a perspective and refers to placing data in a ‘framework … that uses retrospective accounts to explain … interaction of information seeking, meaning ascription and action process in which individuals develop cognitive maps of their environment grounded in both individual and social activity’ (Weick, 1995, pp. 5–6). In this study, making sense of the organisational experiences or situations requires the provision of different types of knowledge based on multiple cues constructed from face-to-face communication and distance interaction. Thus, the themes emerging from this study represent interpretations of the author based on the participants’ discourses. The purpose of participants’ descriptions is to form explicit sensemaking through communication. It may also take place through the transformation and integration of the representations of selected information (Suthers, 2005) within the organisational members’ learning, KM and innovation experiences and the factors that enable these experiences in a geographically dispersed workplace environment. In elaborating the themes that emerge, the author attempts to recognise fresh patterns and distinctive meanings of the phenomena (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 105)

1.1 Aim of Research

5

and to develop a fuller understanding of the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences. The author uses participants’ discourses collected during the data collection process to help make sense of the ways the themes interrelate. The range of methods summarised in Table 4.1 is applied to ensure rigor and thoroughness of the research process, as well as to ensure validity of the findings. The discussions of the findings from this PEI through participants’ discourses were consistently made references to extant literature to voice theoretical conformity to achieve theoretical validity.

1.2 Definitions In this research, participants’ constructions of meaning about fundamental terms are significant to a discussion of the analysis. These constructions are presented in the first parts of the data analysis and findings chapters. However, a number of definitions provided below emerge from the literature that are useful in providing a background against which participants’ use of terms can be discussed. • Training: according to Bramley (2003), ‘Training is a process which is planned to facilitate learning so that people can become more effective in carrying out aspects of their work’. • Performance: Sink and Tuttle (1989) describe effectiveness as doing the right things at the right time, with the right quality.

1.3 Assumptions The following assumptions are made in addressing the research aim: • Organisations recognise the value of learning, KM and innovation practices. • The literature shows a convergence of OL, KM, and innovation theory. (The literature review is discussed in detail in Chap. 2) • Innovation conceptual factors, characteristics and mechanisms enable OL, KM, and innovation experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. • A grounded methodology aligns the research with innovation theory. The ways in which the grounded theory approach corresponds to the characteristics and mechanisms of OL, KM, and innovation theory is discussed in the methodology section.

6

1 Introduction

1.4 Research Question The research study aims to explore the enablers of OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. Thus the guiding question for this study is: ‘what are the factors that facilitate the relationship of organisational learning, knowledge management and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members’, which indicates the convergence of themes across research areas in OL, KM and innovation. Table 1.1 outlines the development of the question throughout the exploration of the literature. In this study, the questions remain open for improvement through the research. Following Kennedy (2006, 2010) and Taft (1999, p. 114), the author does not aim to prove certain hypotheses, but works from her understanding of the theory and the research context. The research questions emerged in such a way that the only manner in which the questions could be answered is by doing a qualitative research. Table 1.1 Research question development Does the literature on knowledge management from 2006 to 2014 continue to show a trend away from information systems and information technology towards personalised and learning/social knowledge systems? How is this trend explained? What is the significance of the realignment of organisational learning and knowledge management?

↓

What are the limitations of early conceptualizations of knowledge management? How has this evolved over time?

↓

What point of views on learning and knowledge exist to support current practice?

↓

There is a challenge in the field to demonstrate how to manage organisational knowledge ↓ for performance (Argote, 2005). How does knowledge management affect organisational performance? In what ways do individuals and team members develop and share knowledge?

↓

What learning strategies and policies can facilitate knowledge creation and transfer to promote organisational effectiveness?

↓

What factors and mechanisms of learning experiences and organisational knowledge support innovation?

↓

In what ways do individuals and team members learn, manage knowledge and innovate? ↓ How does staff learning in a distributed work environment influence new knowledge and ↓ relate to organisational learning and knowledge management? What results are achieved through learning, managing organisational knowledge and innovation experiences in geographically dispersed environment?

↓

What are the causes that influence OL, KM, and innovation experiences?

↓

What is the relationship between learning experience, organisational knowledge and ↓ innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in an organisation? In what ways does innovation theory provide insight into OL, KM and innovation experiences? Adapted from Kennedy (2010), following Taft (1999)

↓

1.5 Background of Study

7

1.5 Background of Study This book proposed to explore the interaction among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation to provide an understanding of the factors, characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation. A large private institute, which is a Singapore-based higher education provider with a broad geographical reach, is the entity of this study. The private higher education provider has several office sites dispersed across the globe, with its head office in Singapore. The private education institute operates across multiple sites within Singapore and overseas. Diverse cultures exist, with staff from different educational backgrounds, age groups, cultural backgrounds and roles, providing breadth in organisational understanding, practices and values. More needs to be explored about learning, knowledge management processes and innovation in a geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in an educational organisation. The participants’ experience prompts research to elucidate the relationships between OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. Knowledge and insights about learning, managing knowledge and innovation among geographically dispersed individuals and team members need to be developed which can contribute to improved practices in organisations. Using the grounded theory methodology, this study constructed new concepts and ideas from the data collected from the social world under review. The author’s objective was not to verify an effect but rather to investigate an under-researched aspect of the experiences of geographically dispersed people in a private education organisation. The grounded theory approach and methods chosen for this study are discussed in detail in this book. Grounded theory offers the methodology to assist in the development of substantive theory from data as well as providing input into developing theories of innovation (Glaser & Strauss, 2009). The data revealed the factors that enable OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation to increase organisational performance. Detailed discussions about extant theoretical concepts were included only on conclusion of the period of grounding the research. This study develops an argument about the intersection of theories. The theoretical framework conceptions are reviewed in Chap. 2 which differs from the traditional literature review chapter. This study is a grounded theory research, and the literature review differs from conventional research. Glaser and Strauss (2009) promote deferring the literature review until after the data collection. However, Strauss explained his opinion (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) by citing the point that authors bring a certain amount of knowledge and standpoint to any research, and authors cannot proceed sensibly by means of a completely clear slate upon which to perform the research. The juxtaposition of the literature review in grounded theory research has been debated among the original grounded theorists (Charmaz, 2006). The disagreement is over the position of the literature review in the overall research process and not in the utilization of a literature review.

8

1 Introduction

This grounded theory study and its findings reinforce OL, KM, and innovation theories and provide an opportunity for interdisciplinary perspectives on OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. Particularly, new views on organisational experiences have been brought to light through examining innovation. Innovation has traditionally been shown as learning based view of innovation embedding OL in firms (Senge, 1990). Recent studies (Coda, 2010; Kamya et al., 2011; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013) tested the learning based view of innovation in local organisations stating OL and innovation for achieving competitive advantage. Darroch (2005) and López-Nicolás and Meroño-Cerdán (2011) in their studies have taken a positivist approach and assert the relationship between KM and innovation for achieving organisational performance. These findings show that, OL and innovation; KM and innovation contribute positively to business performance, and that, OL and KM affects innovation. The missing elements in the body of knowledge are to investigate the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. More needs to be understood about the interrelationship of all three theories OL, KM and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private education organisation. This innovation theory replaces the product based outcome that have to date dominated the discussion (Quintane, Casselman, Reiche, & Nylund, 2011). The substantive theory is extended to innovation theory and provides this study with findings and analyses which reveal opportunities for new ways of understanding approaches to learning within organisations, the development of organisational knowledge and practical implementation of innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. The discussion of innovation, KM, and OL is presented in this study as a natural and emergent process in organisations. The factors, characteristics and mechanisms encapsulating social, architectural and cultural innovation concepts makes a significant contribution to the theoretical discourse of OL, KM, and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed environment. In this study, the data revealed that OL, KM, and innovation experiences are formed daily through social interaction between individuals and groups in geographically dispersed working environment. In this study, in the geographically dispersed work settings, the network of relationships among organisational members creates conditions for human action and interaction to generate new practices and innovation. George, Kotha and Zheng (2008), state that innovation can be seen as a process of combining existing knowledge. In this study, organisational experience is viewed through the use of innovation as a conceptual lens. This study compares substantive theory with formal theory as theoretical integration (Kennedy 2010; Urquhart, 2012). During coding and comparison, the substantive theory was viewed through innovation theory. This approach was adopted to improve “the internal validity, generalizability and theoretical level of theory building” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 545). The relationship between OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed individuals and team members is an area that is still underdeveloped and poorly understood and presents a gap in the literature and in empirical research. The lack of understanding of the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in a private education organisation

1.5 Background of Study

9

demands further investigation, particularly as the interconnectedness of these disciplines provides a framework for understanding the interrelationships between OL, KM, and innovation experiences in new ways. In this study, learning is defined as a social activity of individuals who selfestablish interaction between teams in geographically dispersed environment influence creativity. This study is different from Kennedy’s (2010) finding that learning is defined as a self-organising activity within an organisation operating in a single site. Kennedy’s (2010) findings reveal knowledge as active and situated in an organisation. Whereas this study defines knowledge management as social, active and distributed and is recognised as emerging from a social activity. Innovation is defined as a process, idea and solutions that are reused with improvement and practically implemented in a geographically dispersed environment. This study’s findings highlight the factors established within innovation concepts surrounding the emergent themes that enable social activity of OL, KM, and innovation experiences of geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private educational organisation. Furthermore, the findings discussed the implications for practice. Implications for practice include an integrated model that provides a guide to practice in organisational activities. This provides a fresh perspective for organisations on unconventional ways of organisational structure and how a company can move from a traditional mechanistic organisational structure to a non-mechanistic, collaborative group of networks of learning, managing knowledge and practically implement innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. A discussion about organisations without reference to OL, KM, and innovation as a combined concept seems impossible (Kanchana et al., 2011). OL, KM, and innovation are unique and individual disciplines. However, more needs to be understood about the activities and factors that drive the interrelationship of OL, KM, and innovation for specific outcomes. What one may see as drivers of the innovation processes within firms is learning. The contemporary organisation needs to have innovation mechanisms that support knowledge creation, sharing and integration (McElroy, 2003). The merger of the intelligence generating functions of teams with the knowledge capturing and distributive functions of KM systems has created a powerful tool for organisational innovation (Turner et al., 2012). Turner et al. (2012) claims that viewing KM as a people-embodied activity and the incorporation of teams as a sub-process to KM would be a natural pairing to further enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and production of organisations. The missing element in these extant literatures reveal the need for more understanding about the interrelationship between OL, KM, and innovation activities in the organisations. These situations have led to the importance of this research. This book draws literature from three main bodies which is also the focus of this study. The three disciplines are OL, KM and innovation. This book develops a theory about the factors in relation to social innovation (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Taatila et al., 2006), architectural innovation (Balestrin et al., 2008; Leiponen & Helfat, 2010) and cultural innovation (Johannessen, 2013; Xu, 2011) facilitating OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed educational environment that enable the interrelationship of OL, KM, and

10

1 Introduction

innovation in a large higher education provider with multiple locations. The theory also serves to explain individual and collective learning in a private Singapore-based education institute with facilities in various geographic locations, a setting where the theory has not been previously applied. This study contributes to theories in OL, KM, and innovation theory. The conclusion to this study provides practitioners and managers a practical underpinning for innovation and an understanding of where OL, KM, and innovation interact.

1.5.1 Organisational Learning The first reference to OL was presented by Cyert and March (1963), who subscribed to the notion that OL is aggregate or emergent learning across individuals. Since then, scholars have debated on how learning may be organisational. Duncan and Weiss (1979) assert that only individuals can learn, but they can also communicate their knowledge across a system. Fiol and Lyles (1985) and Levitt and March (1988) emphasise that OL is more than the sum of individual knowledge and that new knowledge can emerge from the interactions of individuals. This is the essence of collective learning as a process or emergence. Fiol and Lyles (1985, p. 803) defined organisation learning as the improving actions through better knowledge and understanding. Argyris and Schön (1978) say that organisations are not merely collections of individuals, yet there are no organisations without such collections. Similarly, OL is not merely individual learning, yet organisations learn only through the experience and actions of individuals. In addition, some authors have concentrated on learning at the individual level (Beckett & Hager, 2000). Bushe (2009a, 2009b) defined OL as an inquiry into the patterns of organising among two or more people, which leads to new knowledge and a change in those patterns of organising. Bushe argues that since everyone creates their own experiences; everyone will have different experiences in every interaction, and so learning from collective experience is a lot more difficult than simply discussing what happened in the past in order to decide what people want to do in the future (2009a, 2009b). Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith and Kleiner (1994) define organisational learning as the ‘practice of developing tangible activities; new governing ideas; innovation in infrastructure, and new management methods and tools for changing the way people conduct their work’ (p. 33). In this study, the finding contributes to the understanding of individuals and team members learning in an organisation in geographically dispersed operations. Previous studies (Donate & Guadamillas, 2011; Kanchana et al., 2011; Kennedy, 2010; Sheng, Chang, Teo, & Lin, 2013) has looked into learning in organisations in various other industries and this study clearly differs in terms of the aims, processes, rules and structures of the formal organisation effectively which influences the collective network of hierarchies and flows across connectors in the emergent organisation which is

1.5 Background of Study

11

geographically dispersed. OL holds that learning occurs in individuals, who then transfer it to groups and finally to the organisation (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Cyert & March, 1963; Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999), or it is initiated in relationships within groups and then becomes institutionalised (Brown & Duguid, 1991). Learning spreads as the organisational focus on the constant development of individual and organisational knowledge, a focus that responds at an increasing rate and frequency to the notion of change. Reference to learning in context is apparent in several OL studies that place importance on the relationship between the individual and learning in an organisation (Jacobs & Park, 2009). In this study, learning in individuals and team members through social activity and their roles in generating new knowledge and practices reveal emergent learning. For several organisations, learning is positioned in the human resources department to facilitate formal training (Smith, 2005). Competencybased training and development (Shandler, 2000; Spencer, cited in Cherniss & Goleman, 2001) has become the dominant model for arranging a formal plan of training development in the workplace in Singapore in the late 1990s. Currently the shift towards delivering higher education services through private institutes in Singapore is a predominant trend. Individuals’ competency is measured (Spencer, cited in Cherniss & Goleman, 2001) based on their knowledge, skills and attitudes, which are acquired from the formal training needed to perform the job at the required level. Such notions of formal training are outdated for OL and thus, this study provides an opportunity to explore new perspectives about the conditions contributing to the emergent learning amongst individuals and team members in a geographically dispersed work environment as a knowledge domain in this field. The private educational institutes in Singapore that provide tertiary education to meet the employees’ competency requirements has become a significant need for its staff to move around different locations to increase organisational performance. There are several OL studies reflecting the discussion of individuals and learning in organisations (Friedman, 2001). The influence of political, structural and cultural organisation environments on the phenomenon of knowledge and its use to the organisation are similarly brought to the forefront in the “third age” (Snowden, 2002, p. 100) or “the new knowledge management” (Firestone & McElroy, 2003, p. 2). Contemporary literature has advanced to establish a firm relationship between organisational setting and innovation and further explored the organisation-environment link in terms of leveraging organisational knowledge dynamics (Brachos et al., 2007; Donate & Guadamillas, 2011; Hardwick et al., 2013; Reay & Seddighi, 2012). For example, Firestone and McElroy (2003) state that learning in an organisation is a way of ‘knowing’. There are wide and varying viewpoints about OL with a focus on flexibility and new perspectives in the field.

12

1 Introduction

1.5.2 Knowledge Management The importance of KM and OL as concepts for understanding experience through an organisational knowledge-based view is evident in the recent literature (Consoli & Elche-Hortelano, 2010; Diaz-Diaz, Aguiar-Díaz, & Saá-Pérez, 2008). This study reveals the KM process across multiple sites and organisational members’ interaction in learning processes. The individuals coached their group of colleagues in geographically dispersed sites with shared understanding, and created new processes in a different situation. This study revealed that knowledge is socially distributed, active, and set in social interaction for common understanding, learning, reusing, and adapt for practical implementation of new knowledge in a geographically dispersed environment. Boisot (1995, 1998), Davenport (1993), Davenport and Prusak (1998), and Stewart (1997) used terms such as capture, abstract, codify, organise, store, diffuse, reuse, transfer and transform to define KM as an advanced level for discussing technology, product/service innovation and development, information technological infrastructures or supporting software, expert systems, decision-support systems or knowledge repositories. Since the early 2000s, the techniques and tools that help to capture knowledge for the development of intelligent systems (Tatiana & Tatiana, 2012) have been of major interest to those studying KM practices and knowledge engineering. These studies (Donate & Guadamillas, 2011; Sheng et al., 2013; Tatiana & Tatiana, 2012) have focused on the technological aspects of knowledge acquisition. Research to date has tended to focus on both learning and knowledge as situated and active (Kennedy, 2010) in the individuals and groups’ head referred to as ‘tacit knowledge’ (Polanyi, 1958) generated in a local office environment. It is apparent that these studies (Donate & Guadamillas, 2011; Kennedy, 2010; Sheng et al., 2013; Tatiana & Tatiana, 2012) have not provided adequate insights into the functioning of the KM process in terms of geographically dispersed team members (Cramton & Hinds, 2007). More needs to be understood how tacit knowledge needs to be managed shared, learnt, and transferred between individuals and groups spread in a geographically dispersed environment. Less is understood about the factors, characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate these learning, managing knowledge and innovation practices in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. This study explores the factors that facilitate the individual and team level underpinnings of OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. Firestone and McElroy (2003) presented ‘the old knowledge management’ (TOKM) paradigm, which has been superseded by a number of competing paradigms that are variants of a broader orientation called ‘second-generation knowledge management’ (SGKM). The variant TOKM has been challenged in recent literature (Tatiana & Aino, 2012; Turner, Zimmerman & Allen, 2012) because it doesn’t distinguish clearly between knowledge processing and KM. TOKM begins by assuming that knowledge exists and does not account for how knowledge is created, produced or discovered. In TOKM, KM is only involved with managing and facilitating the ‘supply’ of pre-existing knowledge to decision makers, and KM does not involve the

1.5 Background of Study

13

‘demand side’ of knowledge processing. Therefore, under TOKM, the production of knowledge cannot be tracked and the knowledge production goes unmanaged. New KM (Firestone & McElroy, 2003) provides a broader organisational learning perspective where knowledge develops from the problem solving of its agents, combining it with complex-adaptive-social theory (Miller & Page, 2007), motivational psychology (Martin, 2006) and cultural analysis (Tihanyi, Griffith & Russell, 2005). Firestone and McElroy’s (2003) work problematises the cognitivist and constructivist perspectives available in OL and KM theories and present insights on learning and knowledge influenced by complexity theory. This study, in contrast offers perspectives on learning, knowledge, and innovation influenced by innovation theory. In light of the myriad diverse disciplines that have previously been studied, this study has the opportunity to contribute to the OL, KM, and innovation processes and human learning experiences, specifically in a geographically diverse entity. KM processing has been engaged with the storage of information and its transfer throughout an organisation and the pursuit of increased performance and continuous OL (Schiuma, 2012). There are also some scholars (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007; Lee & Choi, 2003) who challenge specific professional issues, such as information system or product/service innovation, from a KM perspective by synthesising either, technology and people aspects or by framing KM as the effective integration of people, technology and processes. On the other hand, Johannessen (2013), Kennedy (2010) and Quintane et al. (2011) strongly believes in the creation of new knowledge, not just the revisiting and reuse of existing knowledge possessed by an organisation, but as a kind of informal, collective learning process. The system theoretical view (Carlile, 2002) tends to focus on structural and systemic approaches, while the pragmatic view (Carlile, 2002) emphasises human-centred processes, such as socialization, self-organizing teams, extended social interactions and personnel rotation. Rastogi (2000) also emphasises the importance of the human factor and focuses on the ability of individuals and groups to enable knowledge creation, use and sharing. He defines KM as a process that helps companies meet their goals: Knowledge management as a systematic and integrative process of coordinating organisation-wide activities of acquiring, creating, storing, sharing, diffusing, developing, and deploying knowledge by individuals and groups in pursuit of major organisational goals. It is the process through which organisations create and use their institutional and collective knowledge. (p. 39)

In this study, innovation offers an opportunity for an integrated exploration of OL and the KM of human learning that occurs across geographically dispersed individuals and teams and the collaboration of that learning with organisational knowledge. Rastogi’s (2000) definition recognises the importance of the human factor in KM by focusing on the ability of individuals and groups to enable knowledge creation, use and sharing. Rastogi’s (2000) definition is similar to that of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). However, Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) study describes a mindset in which knowledge is an activity. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) consider knowledge and intellectual capital as an organisation’s most important sources of production and value.

14

1 Introduction

They claim that intellectual capital is not the individuals in an organisation, but what new notions, new skills, life experiences, motivation and practices that individuals bring and contribute to the success of organisations (p. 204). This study will explore the knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities that individuals and team members bring by exploring the organisational characteristics and organisational structures (Alvarenga Neto, 2007) established within architectural innovation (Balestrin et al., 2008; Leiponen & Helfat, 2010) that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Innovation as an organisational phenomenon is conceptualised in different ways as the introduction of new products or processes (Quintane et al., 2011) and as new ideas and technologies diffused in culture (Johannessen, 2013). The traditional innovation literature (e.g. Damanpour, 1991; Van de Ven, 1986), conceptualises innovation without clearly taking into view its fundamental base about knowledge. Whereas in the KM literature (e.g. Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), knowledge is considered: the essence of innovation is to re-create the world according to a particular vision or ideal. To create new knowledge means quite literally to re-evaluate the company and everyone in it in a nonstop process of personal organisational self-renewal…It is a way of behaving, indeed a way of being, in which everyone is a knowledge worker - that is to say, an entrepreneur (p. 97).

There is disconnection between innovation seen in the traditional innovation literature and innovation as conceived in the KM literature. This obvious disconnection has the opportunity to contribute to more appropriate knowledge strategies, ones which recognise the outcome of innovation processes to be new knowledge and KM activities with the organisational members’ social learning experience. Thus, this study presents an integrated model that shows the social, architectural and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate individual and collective interaction, OL, KM, and innovation experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team.

1.5.3 Innovation Sanz-Valle et al. (2011) claim that culture creates the environment for social interactions and adds greater potential for steps forward in innovation. Innovation as an organisational phenomenon has a long tradition of research and has been studied in many different fields and as an introduction of a new product (Quitaine et al., 2011). The term innovation has taken different forms over the years due to the complexity of the phenomenon itself (Adams, Bessant & Phelps, 2006). Jansen, Van den Bosch and Volberda (2006) framed exploratory innovations as radical innovations that are designed to meet the needs of emerging customers of markets. Whittington, OwenSmith and Powell (2009) described innovation networks and systems, and recently Quintane et al. (2011, p. 940) described the innovation outcome based on knowledge elements and defined innovation as the creation of ‘new knowledge’ that is

1.5 Background of Study

15

necessary to replicate the process that leads to innovation outcomes. The gap in the literature about the practical implementation of innovation based on emergent learning, construction of new knowledge through KM and innovation characteristics and mechanisms clearly opens opportunities to explore the social connections between people and resources that people adopt in a geographically dispersed entity to produce and implement innovation. Yilmaz (2008) tested the usefulness of innovation in practice by proposing a set of proxy metrics that could be used to evaluate innovation output in open source system communities, thereby asserting that creativity and innovation occurs at different scales, including individual, group and organisation levels. Similarly, Ishimatsu, Sugasawa and Sakurai (2004) claim that creativity and innovation can be conceptualised at the collective level, as emergent properties of a system of interacting agents within a complex adaptive system. This study adds the nature of dynamic systems to the understanding of OL, KM, and innovation and asserts the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. In this study, innovation is perceived as the opportunity to create work practices in a diverse environment that lead to new social connections. Some recent studies have focused on the mechanisms of learning and the processes involved in managing the knowledge used in developing innovations (HernandezEspallardo, Molina-Castillo & Rodriguez-Orejuela, 2012). Increasingly, organisation theory (Merat & Bo, 2013; Zelaya-Zamora & Senoo, 2013) integrates innovation theory in attempts to discuss observations and understandings of organisational experience in a comprehensive way. This study combines organisational members’ problems or idea identification in creating knowledge, distributing and sharing knowledge across geographically dispersed individuals and teams, and integrating meaning through social connection. In this study, OL, KM, and innovation are interrelated in a geographically dispersed environment. The intricacy presented in the geographically dispersed educational organisation required interdisciplinary research. Author’s intrinsic curiosity to understand the essentials required examination from OL, KM and innovation disciplines. Thus, this study allowed the author to integrate data in building theory, develop substantive theory as well as provided input into developing theories of innovation, methodologies, evaluations, and concepts from multiple disciplines such as OL, KM and innovation in order to advance fundamental understanding of the problems, experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Author gained a depth of understanding more than one discipline and is fluent in the methodology to create a common language for discovery and innovation. Thus, innovation provides an opportunity for interdisciplinary research. This study has revealed fresh perspectives in the discussions of the emergent themes by suggesting that social relationship and networks that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members; knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities facilitates OL, KM and innovation; and social cognitive schema in geographically dispersed individuals and team members facilitates emergent learning, KM and innovation. It also contributes knowledge to innovation theory and also confirms the need for interdisciplinary research. The

16

1 Introduction

author built substantive theory using social, architectural and cultural innovation concepts, characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team. The intertwinement of OL, KM and innovation is informed by the interaction among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation and provides a theoretical ground, as well as implications for future authors and practicing managers. This study suggests the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation that place emphasis on the important role of organisational members as individuals and team members in learning, contributing to both knowledge production and knowledge integration, and practically implementing innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. Through social, architectural and cultural innovation, learning, KM and the generation of new knowledge centres within the geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private education organisation. Social, architectural and cultural innovation helps to develop a focus on the epistemological underpinnings of OL, KM, and innovation theory, and practice progresses alongside developments in OL, KM, and innovation theories in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private education organisation. Innovation theory facilitates the study of innovation as a process and opens the possibility of analysing innovations generated at any place in an organisation (Quintane et al. 2011). This also enables the study of innovation in service categories, such as education, which is currently underrepresented in the innovation literature (Jarvi, 2012). OL, KM and innovation offer an opening for the integrated investigation of the emergent learning, KM practices and generation of new ideas that develop in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. The connection of OL and KM; KM and innovation; and OL and innovation in the literature prompts questions about OL, KM, and innovation experiences in organisations. It triggers discussion about sensemaking in a geographically dispersed work environment, the process of learning, and the role of social learning in knowledge production and integration and innovation experiences of geographically dispersed individuals and team members. In this study, the intersection of themes is developed by describing innovation theories and insights through intersecting disciplines in organisations. Collaborative action of emergent learning, KM, and innovation practices learned from inside experiences is facilitated by understanding the difference and diversity of participants, situations and perspectives.

1.6 Problem The literature supports the recognition of learning, knowledge and innovation experiences in organisations as intertwined in the experience of interaction in the work context (Firestone & McElroy, 2003; Kennedy, 2006, 2010; Stacey, 2003a). The literature reinforces the notion that OL is acquired through formal training (Berglund & Andersson, 2012). Pederson, Dresdow and Benson (2013) focused on formalised

1.6 Problem

17

training programmes in places at work practice organised by human resources departments and the link between information and communication-based KM theory. Council for Private Education (CPE) regulations and the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) training model have promoted critical and organisation-wide change that is being implemented in the private education institute, and this provides a unique opportunity to investigate the processes and practices in place. In this case, it is not the comparison of data with other private education institutes (PEIs) that provides meaning, but the relationship with emergent theory and the ability to create fresh ideas from the data collected (Eisenhardt, 1989). This aligns with the current research purpose to elaborate theoretical perspectives about OL, KM and innovation. In addition, it is believed that this investigation will contribute to understanding the issues of OL, KM, and innovation practices and experiences of participants in a geographically dispersed environment in broader terms. OL, KM and innovation practices in geographically dispersed and educational organisation continues to maintain focus on the emergent learning, knowledge codification and innovation processes that make it possible for individuals and team members to self-organise to learn, exchange and disseminate knowledge and practical implementation of innovation throughout organisations, but enhancing the quality of engagements and relationships with clients need more understanding (Janicot & Mignon, 2012). Johannessen (2013) suggests a conceptual framework and processes which foster innovation to make institutional changes and created a systematic innovation theory. The intersection between the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate learning, KM and innovation experiences is apparent in theory but remains disconnected in practice especially among members of a geographically dispersed team (Jarvi, 2012; Johannessen, 2013). This disconnection is an important problem for organisations in search of more effective individual and collective’s learning, KM and innovation practices and augments the need for further research of organisational experience to learn more about the factors that enable the relationships between OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Developing knowledge and insights which contribute to improved OL, KM and innovation practices in organisations is needed.

1.7 Research Gap OL, KM, and innovation have been defined by several authors and previous studies. Several other studies (Kamya et al., 2011; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013) based on a cross-sectional survey design looked at the relationship between OL and competitive advantage with the effect of KM and innovation. These studies offered findings about the interrelationship of OL, KM, and innovation for achieving competitive advantage. An exploration about the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation is less understood. More understanding about the improvements, replication, implementation and development of innovation is required. Thus, this study

18

1 Introduction

considered the practical implementation of innovation processes in a geographically dispersed organisation. Extant literature revealed that the effective management of the process is influenced by a number of contextual variables (Hartmann, 2006; Kissi, Dainty & Liu, 2012; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Spithoven, Clarysse & Knockaert, 2011) both internal and external to organisations. Few studies have identified external factors such as: regulation, clients, and manufacturers among others as the key factors that influence innovation (Spithoven et al., 2011). Kanchana, Comepa, Malithong, and Phusavat (2011) identified leadership as an internal factor influencing OL and KM to innovation outcome. More needs to be understood about the internal factors on the impact of OL, KM and innovation. The focus of this study is on building theory about the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation and less attention to geographically dispersed educational organisation was evident in extant literature (Jarvi, 2012). Key internal influences on innovation include social, physical, cognitive factors (Hernes, 2004), learning based view and knowledge based view of innovation. Research has discussed OL about the acquisition of knowledge (Serenko & Bontis, 2013). Some research has also looked at how acquired knowledge is shared in organisations (Argote, 2012; Berkes, 2009; Hsu et al., 2007). Research has also shown that embedding OL in firms enable innovation (Quintane et al., 2011). This suggests that embedding KM in any organisation facilitates innovation (Tsoukas, 2009). Subsequently, Kanchana et al. (2011) argued the importance of leadership influence on learning, knowledge management and innovation using quantitative methodology. An exploration using qualitative approach is required to allow participants to identify what they see as a problem in OL, KM and innovation practices and tell the author how they manage that. Thus, this study needs to investigate the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team. In response to this call, the focus of this study is on geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private educational organisation. More needs to be explored about the experiences of people, processes and structures in geographically dispersed organisations. Collective relationships and collective networks (Alguezaui & Filieri, 2010; Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Kickul, Griffiths & Bacq, 2010); organisational characteristics and organisational structures (Alvarenga Neto, 2007; Balestrin et al., 2008); tacit and overt values (Mulej, 2010; Sanz-Valle et al., 2011) established within innovation theory enabling OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members need to be explored. Individuals and team members networking and relationships needs to be investigated through social innovation (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Taatila et al., 2006) concepts about how people learn, manage knowledge and implement innovation. The organisational structures and characteristics need more understanding through architectural innovation (Balestrin et al., 2008; Leiponen & Helfat, 2010) features and mechanisms. Tacit and overt values need to be investigated through cultural innovation (Johannessen, 2013; Xu, 2011) factors that facilitate OL, KM and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team.

1.8 Approach

19

1.8 Approach The alignment of the phenomena in innovation theory with converging themes at the intersection of OL, KM, and innovation theories is strongly argued in this book. Furthermore, innovation theory prompts sensitivity throughout the literature to the characteristics of geographically dispersed environment, which supports the development of a methodology that aligns well with the book’ intertwined theoretical frame. The research approach reflects important themes in the literature. The integration of the methods such as focus group discussion, semi-structured interviews, focus group interview, member checking, memo and personal journal in this study allows for the emergence of novel perspectives, provides richly interconnected data, recognises the iterative and interactive nature of knowledge, and values the personal lived experience of participants in interaction with their geographically dispersed working environment. The selection of a PEI is a large hierarchical structure with its head office in Singapore. It functions across multiple sites within Singapore and overseas. Different cultures exist, with staff from different educational backgrounds, age groups, and job responsibilities providing scope in organisational understanding, practices and values. This geographically dispersed educational organisation as a case for investigation is prompted by the typical disconnection among learning, KM and innovation sections in large hierarchical structures and between ‘organisational’ knowledge and training approaches and applied or ‘distributed’ knowledge learning and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. The dissertation’s focus on the convergence of themes emergent from data is intended to provide justification for perspectives on the characteristics and mechanisms that enable OL, KM, and innovation experiences in organisations that recognise their interrelatedness.

1.9 Significance of Study The research gap discussed with reference to extant literature above in Sect. 4 suggests building theory about the factors, characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in an educational organisation is achievable through an integrated discussion. Therefore, this study makes three significant contributions to the literature in addressing this gap: (i)

This study recognises the importance to analyse organisational members’ experiences and use social, architectural a nd cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate learning, manage knowledge, and implement innovation in a geographically dispersed environment in the discussion. This study is important offering perspectives on learning, knowledge, and innovation built upon innovation theory.

20

1 Introduction

(ii) The study is important in terms of empirical support for the development of practice. Theory built about the factors, characteristics, and mechanisms that influence the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation processes in geographically dispersed individuals and team members provides a theoretical ground and implications for practicing managers. For practicing managers, puts forward a higher emphasis on the internal factors in a geographically dispersed environment that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation as interrelated and enables to understand the process of OL, KM, and innovation experiences. It discovers social learning and the problematic nature of knowledge that characterises organisational behaviour. It also establishes well that many innovations arise from the bottom up in an organisation and across geographical boundaries, via individuals and team members that take it upon themselves, with little direction, to practically implement innovation. Thus, the findings point to implications involving how to incorporate social, architectural and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms for facilitating OL, KM, and innovation experiences together among members of a geographically dispersed team. (iii) This study makes use of the grounded theory methodology which exploits and is established on innovation theory. The methodological approach by building substantive theory adopted in the research draws on innovation perspectives and makes a significant empirical contribution to the theoretical discourse about OL, KM, and innovation is integrated among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. In this study, an extended definition describes innovation as: Individuals and team members’ social learning experiences and behaviours, adoption and understanding of KM mechanisms and activities leads to the generation and implementation of new knowledge in a geographically dispersed work environment. Social, architectural, and cultural innovation factors, characteristics and mechanisms embedded through the network of relationships creates an environment for human action and interaction for learning, managing knowledge and implementing innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. Improvising the processes in a new situation may be necessary to be effective in a geographically dispersed environment, leading to practically implementing innovation for growth. The findings ascertain innovation theory and use of innovation concepts as a conceptual lens through which one can observe the characteristics, mechanisms and activities among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. It provided some suggestive evidence that socially based systems, such as an educational organisation, are able to thrive in a dynamic competitive environment. The dynamic competitive and geographically dispersed environment in this study serves as a proxy for empowered, socially connected and innovative geographically dispersed individuals, team members and organisations. In this exploration, it presents an integrated and a novel perspective on social, architectural and cultural innovation factors, characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation processes in a geographically dispersed environment.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Abstract This chapter offers information on the literature which serves as a contextualization of the literature review and is presented after the introduction. This chapter brings forward OL, KM, and innovation highlighting their relationship. A discussion of geographically dispersed private education organisation is provided as it relates to the study settings, and conceptions of innovation are introduced as the factors influencing OL, KM, and innovation experiences are established on innovation concepts. This chapter further develops an argument to support the claim that the fields intersect in a number of areas. Moreover, this interrelationship is consistent with the central themes in innovation research. Thus, the need for current research is ascertained upon reviewing calls for research. An analysis of the literature in the fields of OL, KM, and innovation practices in a geographically dispersed environment shaped by the factors, characteristics and mechanisms highlights the need for more understanding that focuses on examining the fields together.

2.1 Introduction The literature review in this study is an integral part of data collection and analysis. An important note is that the literature in this study is re-examined after the data collection. This provided a final check on the emergent theory and allowed the author to complete the validation and relevancy processes. In this study, the literature review clearly informs the theory and the scope and provides a final check for the emergent theory. Therefore, the literature review contained within this study conforms to the purpose of what Glaser and Strauss (1967) proposed in the establishment of grounded theory. The literature review in this study allowed the author to define the key mechanisms in the process of OL, process of KM, and innovation concepts in organisations and the relationship between these disciplines. Furthermore, extant literature has scarce findings related to private educational organisations. Hence, there is a need for the author to briefly outline Singapore’s education system and investigation of this study in a private educational organisation would offer more understanding. The literature identifies gaps in each of the research fields, as well as gaps in terms of their integration. The table in Appendix A highlights the research that has © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0_2

21

22

2 Literature Review

been undertaken over the last 10 years. These prior research studies relate to these emergent fields and the converging themes. Although OL, KM, and innovation are tightly intertwined, they are rarely discussed in an integrated manner. This research is motivated from the identification that there are several definitions for OL, KM, and innovation in organisations and that no single research is performed and presented to resolve this conceptual argument. Consequently, academics and practitioners are informed on the significant absence of research of the type offered by this study. The chapter begins with an overview of Singapore’s education system and the PEIs in Singapore which operate in a geographically dispersed environment. Only limited sources of literature covering the private education sector in Singapore were available. As this is the first research into the PEI members’ learning, KM, and innovation experiences, it was necessary to locate other sources of literature to compare and determine the relevance of the study. Sources from the Ministry of Education, Council for Private Education, Singapore’s education system and specific data websites, such as the Singapore Bureau of Statistics, were included in this review. This chapter organises the literature, emphasising the themes that encompass OL, KM, and innovation. This chapter provides the definition of the three concepts, accepting their clear roots, and to confirm their fields and their boundaries. From this analysis, connections between OL, KM, and innovation that converge are presented. This chapter first reviews the literature about the OL, KM, and innovation and then, compared, and contrasted. Next, a background of the convergence of the integration of OL, KM, and innovation and their link to individual and collective experience is offered. Finally, conclusions and how the direction for this research was led are presented in this chapter. This review has led the way in which organisational experiences can be explored with the support of OL, KM, and innovation integration. This chapter clears up the conceptual confusion in the academic domain by presenting an integrating concept: OL, KM, and innovation. These three concepts are introduced as an interrelated and integrating device rather than their separate investigation. Previous studies, extant literatures are critically reviewed to understand how these three concepts are intertwined and can be useful to academics and practitioners. Brachos, Konstantinos, Klas and Soderquist (2007) argued that OL fosters KM and innovation in organisations. Kennedy (2010) argued that OL and KM are intertwined in a public sector organisation in Australia. This study, following Kennedy’s (2010) conversation, promises new perspectives in the fields of OL, KM, and innovation which are described as interrelated, based on developments in a range of disciplines from the data collected from the participants in a Singapore PEI operating in a geographically dispersed environment. There is a considerable body of research addressing OL, KM towards sharing, storing knowledge, and in terms of the impact of technology to manage knowledge (See Appendix A). The knowledge sharing practices have been extensively researched in public and service sectors, but no research has addressed PEIs, and no study has uncovered OL, KM and innovation in PEI which is geographically dispersed. Therefore, what follows is a comprehensive review of the literature addressing the intertwinement of OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members.

2.2 Singapore’s Education System

23

2.2 Singapore’s Education System Singapore’s education system features a national curriculum, and a major national examination is conducted at the end of the primary, secondary and junior college years. Upon completion of their primary education, students can choose from a range of education institutions. Each educational institute offers several programmes that cater to different students’ strengths and interests. Selected secondary schools, junior colleges, polytechnics and universities have the flexibility to admit a percentage of their intake using school-based criteria in the direct or discretionary admission exercises. This allows for a greater range of student achievements and talents to be recognised (Education Statistics Singapore, 2019). Mok (2011) describes the setting of the growing trend of transnationalism in education in his study to compare and contrast the models and approaches that Singapore have adopted to govern and manage the diversity of players in offering transnational education programmes. The results from Lane’s (2011) study suggest that governments are actively recruiting institutions from other countries to aid in improving the host government’s education-related reputation and signalling to the world its desire to be a regional education hub and that it is modernizing its economy. The committee for private education (CPE) established by the government regulates the avenue for transnational educational operation in Singapore and overseas. The Committee for Private Education (CPE) was appointed by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) Board in October 2016 to carry out its functions and powers relating to private education under the Private Education Act. SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) is a statutory board under the Ministry of Education (MOE). Thus, PEIs in Singapore not only increase local capacity and provide a different type of education but are intended to foster new regional interest in pursuing an education in the host country.

2.2.1 Private Education Institutes in Singapore SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) supports the adult training infrastructure by taking on the functions of the Committee for Private Education (CPE), as well as guiding the Institute for Adult Learning (IAL) to enhance the competencies and professionalism of adult educators. SSG plays a key role in the quality assurance for private education institutions and adult training centres. CPE has signed a memoandum of understanding to raise standards in private education with Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education UK; the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications; and Australian Skills Quality Authority (CPE, 2020). Several foreign universities have collaborative arrangements with private education institutions to offer their degree and post-graduate programmes in Singapore. Private institutes do not receive government funding. However, institutions such as Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) or the La Salle College of the arts are funded

24

2 Literature Review

by the government but categorised as private institutes. These two institutes receive financial support from the Ministry of Education Singapore. CPE is the approving authority for key decisions to be made under the Enhanced Registration Framework and the EduTrust Certification regime. It also institutes systems for process benchmarking, oversees regular reviews of regulatory frameworks, and provides guidance for consumer education initiatives and student support services (CPE, 2020). The committee facilitates capability development efforts to uplift standards in PEIs (CPE, 2020).With the CPE’s launch of the Enhanced Registration Framework in 2009, all PEIs are required to be registered with the EduTrust to offer school placements for international students. Student Pass applications will be accepted only if they are from international students who are enrolled in an EduTrusted PEI. (A complete list of EduTrust-certified institutions is available at http://www.cpe. gov.sg.) A private education organisation must comply with CPE regulations and register under the Enhanced Registration Framework (ERF) scheme. However, NAFA and La Salle colleges are exempt. Thus, the project will focus on private education organisations owned by individuals and companies that cater to both local and international students. Some of the private education organisations have their branding positions as a franchising and licensing business, as well as overseas campuses. However, the Singaporean government does not allow PEIs to issue their own degrees (Mok, 2008). Several PEIs operate different models to deliver their international programmes locally and overseas (Marginson, 2011).

2.2.1.1

Single Integrated Campus

PEIs own campuses in Singapore that wide cater to international students, with hostels and sports amenities to provide holistic learning experiences for students. Some PEIs lease or rent sites to establish an infrastructure for teaching and learning (CPE, 2012), and staff work at the same site.

2.2.1.2

Multiple Locations

PEIs also operate in multiple locations within Singapore, with city campuses spread across various districts for convenience for both part-time working adults and international students (ESD, 2012). This means that staff members are required to travel across different sites to teach and support students’ learning.

2.2 Singapore’s Education System

2.2.1.3

25

Overseas Campuses

PEIs operate in overseas locations, and no two private education organisations have established campuses in the same country. Thus, different market segments are penetrated by the respective PEIs to avoid dilution of student enrolments. Staff members are required to travel to overseas campuses, and personnel from subsidiary units are required to visit the headquarters for training and development (Lane, 2011).

2.2.1.4

Franchise and Licensing Models

Some PEIs have established a franchise model that includes a license of the brand and operating methods along with assistance (training, an operations manual, etc.) or support (providing advice, quality control, inspections, etc.). Royalty fees of each year’s revenue or flat fee facilitator licensing arrangements are adopted by some PEIs (Mok, 2008).

2.2.1.5

Distance and E-Learning Models

The adult/mature learner community has different needs due to their careers and lifestyles, which means the delivery of programmes is through an electronic medium, using discussion forums, webinar sessions via Elluminate, WebEx and Interwise web conferencing tools. Blogs, virtual communities and mobile devices have demonstrated their effectiveness for online education, and evidence suggests that when workers and students interact amongst themselves, they construct cumulative knowledge far beyond self-learning alone (Nejdl et al., 2006). Staff members working at PEIs communicate with their university partners using various information and communication channels and mediums.

2.2.1.6

E-Learning with Local Tutorial Support

Flex-learning—widely known as blended learning—includes online discussion forums, virtual learning environments, chats via Skype, telephone correspondence, and telephone conference or group video conferences to complement the face-toface training model. Blended learning models are popular, and teaching and learning practices are commonly adopted in delivering distance education programmes, with staff training also being provided via these channels. Several PEIs adopt the “click and brick” approach to leverage e-learning for scalability in addressing the demand beyond Singapore’s shores (Olds, 2007).

26

2.2.1.7

2 Literature Review

Corporate Training

SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) also brings together collaborations in continuing education and training (CET) and pre-employment training (PET). These are established as skills requirements will continuously meet the requirements of different industry segments. SSG has established CET centres to deliver quality adult training. CET Centres are public training providers which offer a complete array of The Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) courses as well as additional services, such as career advisory, employment advisory and placement (CPE, 2020). On-site and customised training programmes are also available where required and allow further or more in-depth professional training to take place. Above all, the programmes offer training of the highest standard in dedicated, quiet training rooms, which are well resourced and comfortable (Ashton, Green, Sung & James, 2002).

2.2.1.8

Overseas Faculty Visits

Some PEIs offer international collaborative arrangements for professors/lecturers to travel to deliver their programmes. Similarly, lecturers from Singapore will be sent to overseas campuses (CPE, 2020).

2.2.1.9

Not-for-Profit Organisations

The optimum surplus or profit that a PEI earns is channelled and ploughed back towards community service and towards its members in terms of better quality education. All surpluses may be retained and used for improving infrastructure, community projects, and for upgrading and improvement purposes (Mok, 2011).

2.2.1.10

Publically Listed

Some PEIs are also publically listed and are able to raise funds through the sale of securities. They contribute to the nation’s economic development as they are driven by world class tertiary sectors. Through these transactions, they are able to raise a large amount of capital to build and sustain companies to deliver academic and service excellence (Sanderson, 2002).

2.2.2 Competitive Advantage of PEIs The last decade has seen significant changes in all aspects of internationalization but most dramatically in the area of education and research moving across national borders. The most recent developments are education hubs. The term education hub

2.2 Singapore’s Education System

27

is being used by countries that are trying to build a critical mass of local and foreign actors—including students, education institutions, companies, knowledge industries, and science and technology centres. Thorough interaction and in some cases colocation, these local and foreign actors engage in education, training, knowledge production and innovation initiatives (Knight, 2011).

2.2.2.1

Education Hubs and Academic Excellence

Singapore has a well-structured and developed education system and has gained a strong academic reputation for students being able to acquire admission into various top universities worldwide (ESD, 2012). The Singapore government attempts to promote greater diversity and autonomy in the tertiary education landscape (Ng & Tan, 2010). The Singapore government maintains centralised control through systems of accountability to—and funding from—the state (Ng & Tan, 2010).

2.2.2.2

Convenient Location

Singapore is geographically located with convenient access to top source countries for international students, such as China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, India and South Korea (Ashton et al., 2002).

2.2.2.3

Customised Programmes

PEIs offer customised certificate levels to advanced diploma level programmes to cater to students from different socio-economic classes, cultures and different countries, which allow them to broaden their educational experiences (ESD, 2012).

2.2.2.4

Global School House

Singapore has served as a focal point for global initiatives, information, money and people in working closely within respective industries (Sidhu, 2005). The Global Schoolhouse Project explains the creative and imaginative ways in which the Singaporean nation-state is re-modelling itself in response to the new iterations of global capitalism (Sidhu, 2005, Sanderson, 2002). The difficulties in implementing the project show that it is a challenge for the government to make happen a tertiary education ‘market economy’ with private foreign players while maintaining centralised control over the accomplishment of its strategic agenda within its required time frame (Ng & Tan, 2010).

28

2.2.2.5

2 Literature Review

Social Factors

Singapore acts a catalyst in preparing local institutions for the nation’s economic development, as it is orients itself to be the regional hegemonic player in a “knowledge economy” driven by a world-class tertiary sector. “Considerations of history, culture and economic development add substance and depth to the claim that Singapore, by necessity and design, is on the verge of creating a unique ‘hub’ of international education” (Sanderson, 2002). English is the main medium of communication, and Singapore is considered a safe cosmopolitan city: it is one of the most popular places to work and live (Lim, 2010).

2.2.3 Constraints for PEIs The proliferation of higher education providers and transnational schools has raised concerns regarding the search for new governance and regulatory frameworks in governing the rapid expansion of these types of organisations in Singapore and other Asian societies. Higher education governance has become more complex in Singapore amid the quest for being a regional hub of education, as nation states have to deal with multinational corporations as they become increasingly active in running transnational education programmes (Mok, 2011).

2.2.3.1

Public Sector

The education sector is regulated by the Ministry of Education, and thus public education institutions have focused on providing education for local Singaporeans. This ensures sufficient supply of manpower for the relevant industries (Lane, 2011; Sidhu, 2005).

2.2.3.2

Facilities and Infrastructure

In order to provide holistic learning experiences for students, PEIs are under pressure to have the appropriate infrastructure for classrooms, living, sports, laboratories, auditoriums and so on (ESD, 2012).

2.2.3.3

Rigid Immigration Checkpoint Authority Regulations

Student pass requirements are another stage that could hamper the competitive development of the education industry (CPE, 2012). Singapore, one of the East Asian tiger economies, has attempted to diversify its higher education system by developing “transnational education” in the island state, showing that the role of government in

2.2 Singapore’s Education System

29

East Asia is important, especially when there is a strong need for government to set up appropriate regulations, social protection and welfare (Mok, 2008).

2.2.3.4

Quality Assurance System

The CPE has imposed transparency and quality control among lecturers and trainers employed in PEIs. Upon reviewing the competitive advantage and constraints for PEIs, it is evident that the economic and social benefits could be reaped in Singapore’s education industry in the near future (Shin & Harman, 2009). An increase in GDP is expected to arise from international and local students’ spending, as well as from PEI expenditure on delivering educational services. Therefore, graduate employability is expected to increase (Mok, 2008; Steier, 2003). The tertiary segment could be the largest incremental contributor to Singapore’s economy, with an increased pool of international students and foreign executives (ESD, 2012). Thus, it is evident that individuals as owners and leaders of PEIs play a major role in contributing to the growth, sustainability and improvement of these institutes in Singapore. If managers do not have the necessary understanding to change themselves, it is very unlikely that they will be able to contribute effectively to the development of organisational learning and KM processes (Dealtry, 2006). Rajat (2012, p. 252) states that “higher education institutions (HEIs) are responsible for managerial knowledge creation and dissemination in society”, and Sanz-Valle et al. (2011) assert that OL enhances the assimilative capacity of firms. There is a considerable body of research addressing the motivation and attitudes of employees towards sharing, transferring and storing knowledge, and in terms of the impact of technology on job design to transfer knowledge (See Appendix A). The motivation and attitudes of workers in sharing and transferring knowledge have been extensively researched in public and service sectors, but no research has addressed PEIs, and no has study uncovered employee learning at work in PEIs. Therefore, what follows is a comprehensive review of the literature addressing OL, KM, and innovation in the private education industry.

2.3 Organisational Learning This section reviews the definitions and impetus for development of theory in OL that informs this research. It explores learning in organisations with an emphasis on individual, social and organisation aspects. The review also discovers important metaphors and arguments in the literature before summarising current perspectives in the field. Among the earliest to identify a model of OL were Cyert and March (1963), who saw learning as an adaptation of an organisation through the rational decision making process of the individuals composing an organisation. This approach led to one of the first models to attempt to integrate individual and OL by March and Olsen (1975).

30

2 Literature Review

The next section will review the widely held theoretical frameworks employed to understand OL.

2.3.1 Defining Learning Although Gold, Holden, Griggs, and Kyriakidou (2010) wrote that “there are many different definitions of learning” (p. 116), the authors suggested that one definition has consistently and concisely covered all bases. From the 1950s to 1980s, learning was largely considered from the interference theory perspective, with importance on rote learning and memorizing in individuals. From a broad view, the Collins Concise Dictionary (2001) defines learning as “knowledge acquired by study”. Several authors have defined learning as a comparatively permanent transformation in behaviour that happens as a consequence of experience and that infuses people’s lives (Greenberg & Baron, 1995; Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Weick (2001) classified the psychology of learning into behavioural association theories or stimulus-response explanations, as well as cognitive organisational theories or cognitive explanations. Lave and Wenger (1991) argued that learning is fundamentally a social process that occurs as an interaction between two people or as a “socially constructed process” (Jonassen & Land, 2012). Kennedy (2010) in her study presented learning as ‘participative, something naturally emergent from the process of engaging in work’ (p. 139). Later on, the term learning was associated with organisations and the term organisational learning was coined. This study supports Kennedy’s (2010) definition because learning is a social activity allowing individuals and team members to self-organise. However, this study reveals learning as a social process of individuals and team members in a geographically dispersed environment.

2.3.2 Definition of OL A general theory of OL has not become apparent, even though the term OL has existed for a number of decades, and there is little convergence as to what is meant by the term. Convergence has not eventuated because authors have applied the concept to different fields, including information processing, product innovation and bounded rationality (Crossan et al., 1999, p. 522). The first reference to OL was presented by Cyert and March (1963), who subscribed to the notion that OL is aggregate or emergent learning across individuals. Since then, scholars have debated on how learning may be organisational (Duncan & Weiss, 1979; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Levitt & March, 1988). Duncan and Weiss (1979) assert that only individuals can learn, but they can also communicate their knowledge across a system. Fiol and Lyles (1985) and Levitt and March (1988) emphasise that OL is more than the sum of individual knowledge and that new knowledge can emerge from the interactions of individuals. This is the

2.3 Organisational Learning

31

essence of collective learning as a process or emergence. This study supports Levitt and March (1988) notion of collective learning as an emergent social process. Argyris and Schon (1978) say that organisations are not merely collections of individuals, yet there are no organisations without such collections. Supporting Argyris and Schon (1978), Fiol and Lyles (1985) defined organisation learning as the improving actions through better knowledge and understanding. Similarly, OL is not merely individual learning, yet organisations learn only through the experience and actions of individuals. In addition, some authors have concentrated on learning at the individual level (Beckett & Hager, 2000). Bushe (2009a, 2009b) defined OL as an inquiry into the patterns of organizing among two or more people, which leads to new knowledge and a change in those patterns of organizing. Bushe argues that since everyone creates their own experiences, everyone will have a different experience in every interaction, and so learning from collective experience is a lot more difficult than simply discussing what happened in the past in order to decide what people want to do in the future (2009a, 2009b). This study supports Bushe (2009a, 2009b) and reflects novelty which lies in the elements suggested are integrated by people in the geographically dispersed settings is to some extent different. Practices are differentiated within geographically dispersed settings on many characteristics and mechanisms that enable OL, KM, and implementation of innovation. Thus, the findings of this study depict sufficient space for variety in the chosen geographically dispersed educational organisation. Among the earliest to identify a model of OL were Cyert and March (1963), who saw learning as an adaptation of an organisation through the rational decision making process of the individuals composing an organisation. This approach led to one of the first models to attempt to integrate individual and OL by March and Olsen (1975). The next section will review the widely held theoretical frameworks employed to understand OL. Table 2.1 illustrates different focus in the definitions of the concepts in OL that are important to this study. Table 2.1 illustrates a wide range of important issues that have become known in the literature on OL and that support a number of important debates. The definitions point to varying interpretations of OL, KM, and innovation with the range of theoretical stances emphasizing the density and breadth of the field. Through these varying definitions, the book’s central themes are put forward. Individual and collective learning, the active nature of knowledge, and the role of innovation execution in OL, KM, and innovation are indicated in the definitions as significant to understanding OL. These themes persist across the theme of discussion that underpins this study for more understanding and provide a basis for their integrated investigation. The next section will review the widely held impetus for the development of OL.

2.3.3 Impetus for Development of OL The concept of OL has flourished and been defined in a broad range of literature (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Cohen & Sproul, 1991; Levitt & March, 1988; Senge, 1990).

32

2 Literature Review

Table 2.1 Different focuses in definitions of organisational learning Key term

Source

Definition

Learning

Tolman (1934, p. 29)

Acquisition of expectation sets or knowledge about sign-Gestalt’s, or cognitive maps

Dewey (1938, p. 124)

A continuous process of the reconstruction of experience

Skinner (1950, pp. 37–38)

Skinner (1950) discussed the proliferation of general theories of learning in experimental psychology during the 1930s and 1940s: ‘Certain basic assumptions, essential to any scientific activity, are sometimes called theories. That nature is orderly rather than capricious is an example. Certain statements are also theories simply to the extent that they are not yet facts’ (Skinner, 1950, pp. 37–38)

Kimble (1961, p. 2)

A more or less permanent change in behaviour which occurs as a result of practice

Argyris (1992, p. 29)

A process of detecting and correcting errors

Schon (1983)

‘We must, in other words, become adept at learning. We must become able to transform our institutions in response to changing situations and requirements. We must also invent and develop institutions which are ‘learning systems’; that is to say, systems capable of bringing about their own continuing transformation’

Senge (1990, p. 14)

An organisation that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future

Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell (1991, 1996)

An organisation which facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself

Watkins and Marsick (1993)

Learning organisations are characterised by total employee involvement in a process of collaboratively conducted, collectively accountable change directed towards shared values or principles.

Learning organisations

(continued)

2.3 Organisational Learning

33

Table 2.1 (continued) Key term

Source

Definition

Senge et al. (1994, p. 49)

The continuous testing of experience and the transformation of that experience into knowledge—accessible to the whole organisation and relevant to its core purpose

Fiol and Lyles (1985)

‘Organisational learning means the process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding’.

Stata (1989)

Occurs through shared insights, knowledge, and mental models… builds on past knowledge and experience—that is, on memory

Individual learning

Argyris and Schön (1978, 1996, p. 16)

‘Organisational learning occurs when individuals within an organisation experience a problematic situation and inquire into it on the organisational behalf’

Collective learning

Weick (2001, p. 267)

For Weick (2001), the collective mind is ‘located in the process of interrelating’ and provides a ‘trans-individual’ (p. 267) quality in learning

Wang and Ahmed (2003, p. 9)

Collective learning occurs in addition to the learning process at the individual level and may even occur independently of each individual

Rowley (1999, p. 418)

‘Knowledge management is concerned with the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an organisation, with a view to furthering the organisation’s objectives’

Organisational learning

Knowledge management

(continued)

34

2 Literature Review

Table 2.1 (continued) Key term

Source

Definition

Social architecture

Fullan (2002), Murray and Blackman (2006, p. 135)

Fullan (2002) describes the creation of knowledge from a constructivist viewpoint, stating that it is a social process They argue that managers should be more aware of a variety of social processes that act as a channel of communication and dialogue through which systematic innovation occurs. They state that social interaction is critical in supporting and developing constructed knowledge that is needed for innovation

Change

Crossan et al. (1999), Weick and Quinn (1999)

Does not involve a process of freezing, changing and unfreezing, but is rather an ongoing dynamic process

Fullan (2001)

The change process is to innovate selectively with coherence; work in a team that finds collective meaning of each other’s ideas and commitment to new ways of doing things; expect early difficulties in implementation; view resistance as a potential positive force; aim to change values in the culture; consider complexity rather than time-lined sequences of implementation

Becker and Whisler (1967)

The process of interaction between individuals, organisations and the environment

Ries and Trout (1981)

They showed that innovation is a form of learning

Rogers (1995, p. 11)

Innovation has been defined as an ‘idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption’

Slappendel (1996, p. 108)

Defined as a ‘process through which new ideas, objects and practices are created, developed, or reinvented’

Innovation

(continued)

2.3 Organisational Learning

35

Table 2.1 (continued) Key term

Source

Definition

Huber (1998)

Huber (1998) differentiates between a connectedness between organisational learning and innovation, where information-rich situations support creativity and innovation

Obstfeld (2005, p. 100)

‘Organisational innovation is often a process of creating new social connections between people and resources they carry, so as to produce novel combinations’

Murray and Blackman (2006, p. 134)

Innovation will assume to have been created within the contexts where individuals and systems collide

Kanchana et al. (2011)

Leadership in establishing supportive cultures and working environment for effective KM will lead to better learning and subsequently more innovativeness in an organisation

Hernandez-Espallardo et al. (2012)

Intra-organisational, exploitation-type learning processes are positively related to the performance of incremental innovations

Turner et al. (2012, p. 968)

The merger of the intelligence generating functions of teams with the knowledge capturing and distributive functions of KM systems has created a powerful tool for organisational innovation

Moustaghfir and Schiuma (2013)

KM and innovation will have effect on the relationship between OL and competitive advantage in organisations

‘There has been an accumulation of research on modelling behaviour in learning psychology’ (Nonaka, 1994). Socialization through shared experience facilitates the creation of common perspectives that ‘can be learned and shared by team members as a part of their respective bodies of tacit knowledge’ (Nonaka, 1994, p. 24). Socialization contributes to high performance in functional departments (Kusunoki, Nonaka, & Nagata, 1998; Nonaka, Toyama, & Nagata, 2000). Thus, socialization is positively related to OL. Also, many authors link OL with improvements in performance (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Bohn, 1994; Dodgson, 1993; Fiol & Lyles, 1985) or a

36

2 Literature Review

behaviour change that leads to improved performance (Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Garvin, 1993; Senge, 1990; Sinkula, 1994). Therefore, performance measures are essential for effective management of any organisation (Griffis, Goldsby, Cooper & Closs, 2007; Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute, 2010). The author’s perspective is that OL is positively related to organisational performance so that the higher the OL, the higher the performance in the organisation. Both the definitions and uses of the term OL are still associated with considerable confusion (Easterby-Smith, Snell, & Gherardi, 1998; Edmondson & Moingeon, 1998). The relationship between OL and KM has been best put forward by Garvin (2000) that an organisation that learns is a knowledgeable organisation in creating, acquiring and transmitting knowledge, and adjusting its behaviour to self-adapt. Findings indicate that there is lack of developing work and a lack of integration in the subject of OL (Huber, 1991). Hence, there is little conformity on what OL is and how it should be accessed (Huber, 1991, p. 89). It is this ‘demythicisation’ of the very basis of OL that leads this study to explore the experiences of learning in organisations. The practices in an organisation link them to the knowledge the organisation holds. This investigation takes place within a reflection on the development of a discussion. Although its relationship to OL, KM, and innovation has been explored sporadically, the review showed no empirical studies conducted exploring the factors that facilitate their relationship in a geographically dispersed PEI context. This creates a vacuum in the literature of OL, KM, innovation management, and the higher education industry in PEIs. The present study extends the process school by examining different dimensions of OL, KM, and innovation. More needs to be understood about the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate the inter-relationship between OL, KM, and innovation in the geographically dispersed educational environment. An international review of literature revealed that although extensive research has been conducted on learning, knowledge, innovation and culture, more needs to be explored in the context of Singapore PEIs. The review of the literature was predominantly conducted in the public sector and manufacturing industry, with a few studies conducted for project management in knowledge sharing in the service sectors, such as finance and health industries (See Appendix A). Most of the empirical research in education primarily addressed schools and school principals and change. This study is unique in that it explores the characteristics and mechanisms that enable learning, knowledge, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. Such an attempt has not been carried out in the previous empirical studies on learning, knowledge, and innovation in a geographically dispersed educational context. This study adds to the body of knowledge on learning, knowledge, innovation and contextualises them for a Singaporean private education organisation. Current OL practices are maintained at the single- and double-loop level. Singleloop learning is linked to error detection and correction, which is the main mechanism of quality control: a process involving knowledge accumulation, dissemination and retention. Double-loop learning moves to a higher level and demonstrates a certain degree of practical inclination by focusing on error prevention and dedicated to a zero-defect quality. Double-loop learning leads to total quality, with

2.3 Organisational Learning

37

knowledge refinement and knowledge creation through incremental changes. Quality control and total quality are considered the main mechanisms of continuous improvement. Therefore, both single- and double-loop learning contribute to the continuous improvement approach for quality and innovation. Radical innovation can be achieved through the accumulation of incremental changes (Wang & Ahmed, 2001). In order to succeed, organisations need to change their focus to triple-loop learning, which is a learning process that incorporates a higher degree of creative input and organisational unlearning and is an interactive and iterative process. Contemporary literature has focused on claiming that OL can increase shared managerial understandings that may lead to organisational benefits derived from higher degrees of unified action (Campbell & Armstrong, 2013). Innovation is another core organisational competency reflected in the recent literature of KM and OL theory (Choo & Johnston, 2004). Less is understood in the literature focusing on the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in higher education and specifically in a PEI spread across multiple geographic locations.

2.4 Contemporary Perspectives on OL There is common agreement on the significance of investigating methods to support learning, regardless of where or how the learning occurs (Lancaster, Di Milia, & Canmeron, 2013; Maurer & Lippstreu, 2008). OL literature is unveiled as fragmented, vague and incoherent by some authors. Wang and Ahmed (2004) claim that the concept of OL is ‘excessively broad’. Buchel and Probst (2002) argue that OL primarily focuses on identifying learning theories and the processes of changing organisational knowledge. KM is taking a proactive role in providing frameworks and guidelines for active intervention into an organisation’s knowledge base. Soliman (2011, p. 1354) claims that OL is a process that involves interactions among individuals and decision makers. A second look is taken at OL, with a focus on learning, in the works of Berglund and Andersson (2012), Wang, Ran, Liao and Yang (2010), and Warhurst (2013). Kay (1993) suggests that social architecture is a network of relational contacts within and around the enterprise (Smith, Blackman, & Good, 2003). OL processes are also developed through the social architecture constructionist approach, according to Murray and Blackman (2006, p. 133). They argue that a social constructionist perspective is the principal means by which innovations develop over time and that managers should be more aware of a variety of social processes that act as a channel of communication and dialogue through which systematic innovation occurs. They claim that relational contacts, modes of communication, feedback mechanisms, information flows and knowledge groups are critical in supporting and developing the constructed knowledge that is needed for innovation. Importantly, this new wave of literature that looks at combining innovation theory with OL may be the point at which OL and KM merge. Thus, research may then progress towards more holistic understandings or learning, knowledge sharing and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed environment. Murray and

38

2 Literature Review

Blackman’s work (2006), which draws on managing innovation, adds a new perspective to the extant constructions of OL theory, as does that of Barbaroux (2012), Brachos et al. (2007), Choo et al. (2004), Donate et al. (2011), Du Plessis (2007), Hernandez-Espallardo et al. (2012), and Zheng and Zhang (2011). Organisations are seen as learning through a number of processes that create new knowledge or modify existing knowledge. Tsang (1997) and Sadler-Smith, Allinson and Hayes (2000) use KM synonymously with OL. Meenakshi (2002) studied the process of knowledge flow between the Ministry of Education and public schools located in Singapore. The study adopted a survey method with a response rate of 23 percent, which according to quantitative authors, is considered quite low. The findings showed that the horizontal and vertical flow of information between headquarters and subsidiaries varied with the intensity of information. In contrast to these studies, this study highlighted the importance of transferring activities, information flow in the OL, KM, and innovation process. This study also revealed that OL can create a common understanding using transferring activities and mechanisms for managing and understanding organisational knowledge and for practical implementation of new ideas between organisational members located in a geographically dispersed environment that is greater than what individual learning can generate. Jerez-Gomez, Cespedes-Lorente and Valle-Cabrera (2005) argued that knowledge and, more specifically, its acquisition or creation, along with its dissemination and integration within the organisation, become key strategic resources to OL. As a viewpoint of the system, Ke and Wei (2006) discussed and identified knowledge as the antecedent and base of OL. They claim that KM will positively affect OL. However, Kanchana et al. (2011) argue that KM effects OL and innovation. Moustaghfir and Schiuma (2013) ascertain how KM practices nurture learning and innovation for improving organisational competitiveness. These studies reveal that OL, KM, and innovation are intertwined with each other. Learning in the geographically dispersed working environment can be understood as social networking between learners, which allows the creation and transfer of knowledge among individuals and groups, according to Wang et al. (2010, p. 169). Whereas KM focuses on the role and relevance of emotions, energy, and ethics that affect people behaviours as knowledge-based drivers for the innovation and nurturing learning. Most studies on OL have been concerned with the acquisition of knowledge, and to a lesser extent, with management of organisational knowledge in a geographically dispersed work environment. This study presents OL experiences, KM mechanisms, implementation of innovation and processes that are made available at intraorganisational level, as opposed to being the property of select individuals or groups. The following section reviews the phenomena integrating the organisational, group and individual perspectives, as well as KM activities and mechanisms, and then considers the knowledge processes that ground the OL, KM, and innovation practices for improvement of organisational performance (Kanchana et al., 2011; Schiuma, 2012).

2.5 Knowledge Management

39

2.5 Knowledge Management There is not enough space in one paper to provide a detailed critique of all KM approaches. Managing knowledge requires sophisticated and people-intensive activities that can only be mediated or facilitated by information and communication technologies (Chen, Yeh, & Huang, 2012; Mingers, 2008; Tatiana & Aino, 2012). From a KM perspective, Huber (1991) observed that learning may be unconscious or unintentional and can be acquired in the process of an unstructured discussion. Communities of practice perspectives were also adopted to understand the relationship between OL practices and innovation in business organisations through the lens of the KM framework (Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013). Knowledge management is a term surrounded by a lot of controversy and confusion ever since its introduction in the early 1990s (Chatti, 2012; Serenko & Bontis, 2013). KM is multi-disciplinary in nature. It builds its theoretical core upon knowledge from various fields, including information technology, organisational science and cognitive science (Dalkir, 2005). KM is hard to define in a precise way. In KM literature, there are many definitions and interpretations of the term, which point to the different perspectives and models. Despite a lack of agreement on what is meant by KM, the definitions revolve around two core views of knowledge: knowledge as a thing and knowledge as a process (Chatti, 2012). KM has also been defined in numerous ways depending on the purpose of research. Alavi and Leidner (1999) define KM as a systemic and organisationally specified process for acquiring, organizing and communicating both tacit and explicit knowledge for employees so that other employees may make use of it to be more effective and productive at work. Also, KM is defined as a method designed to simplify and improve the process of creating, sharing and using knowledge in an organisation (Gottschalk, 2005). In today’s complex work environment, incorporating teams as a sub-process of KM, which further supports knowledge creation, storage and transfer within the organisation, makes economic sense, and most organisations already incorporate the use of teams at some capacity (Turner et al., 2012, p. 971). Duffy (1999) describes KM as ‘a process capitalizing on organisational intellect and experience to drive innovations’. Turner et al. (2012, p. 969) suggest viewing it as a people-embodied activity and that the incorporation of teams as a sub-process to KM would be a natural pairing—further enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency and production of organisations.

2.5.1 Impetus for Development of KM The impetus for the focus on KM grew from the work of business practitioners who developed and applied the first KM concepts in organisational settings (Merat & Bo, 2013). Whilst there is widespread recognition of the importance of KM and sharing amongst employees in organisations, as well as its potential to enhance organisational

40

2 Literature Review

performance and competitive advantage (e.g. Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Jackson, Chuang, Harden, Jiang, & Joseph, 2006), little previous research has been conducted on this topic within PEIs. This is a rich area of research (Fullwood, Rowley, & Delbridge, 2013) that leverages theories and frameworks from KM, information science, human resource development, psychology and management towards the goal of learning and performance innovation for the individual, team and organisation (Turner et al., 2012). Knowledge, with its unique characteristics that distinguish it from physical products, has brought a fresh perspectives to all management fields, including the idea of ‘managing’ this new source of value creation in companies (Merat & Bo, 2013). The literature increasingly recognises the importance of developing new products and services for achieving a sustained competitive advantage (Booz et al., 1982; Cooper, 1984; Wiig, 1997). The development of new products and services (Maidique & Zirger, 1985) is ‘among the essential processes for success, survival, and renewal of organisations, particularly for firms in either fast-paced or competitive markets’ (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995, p. 344). Embracing the importance of innovation enables firms to offer a greater variety of differentiated products, achieve an increased market share (Van Auken, Madrid-Guijarro & Garcia-Perezde-Lema, 2008) and improve their financial performance (Zahra, Ireland, & Hitt, 2000). Some earlier works focused on learning, work and knowledge in terms of product orientation. Weerawardena, O’Cass and Julian (2006) defined organisational innovation as the application of ideas that are new to the firm, whether the newness is embodied in products, processes and management, or marketing systems. They concluded that OL is closely related to organisational innovation and that the higher the learning, the greater the organisational innovation. Related to this exploration is a changing understanding of work and organisations from a product orientation to a service orientation. The shift requires new ways of managing organisations, people and knowledge. Therefore, academic knowledge creation takes place physically, mentally and/or virtually in interaction (Hautala, 2011) in a ‘place’ (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40). This place is also an arena of discourse, a way of talking and writing about research (Watson, 2003, p. 113). Discourse varies situationally and is interpreted individually (see Augier, Shariq, & Vendelo, 2001, p. 129; Creplet, 2000).

2.5.2 Contemporary Perspectives of KM Barbaroux (2012) integrates innovation, KM and OL, arguing for a view of collaborative innovation as a complex and multidimensional OL process ‘affected by the contextual factors such as the organisation structure, information, communication and control process, which impact on the way individuals learn’ (Antonacopoulou, 2006, p. 456). KM, organisational performance and innovation are supported and can be enhanced by utilizing the benefits provided from teams (Turner et al., 2012, p. 971). Innovation theory emerges from the formalization of KM and access to

2.5 Knowledge Management

41

experience, knowledge and expertise that create new capabilities, enable superior performance, encourage innovation and enhance customer value. Early literature on innovation concentrated on the adoption of new ideas and practices by autonomous individuals (Slappendel, 1996). Economists examined innovation patterns at the level of industries and national systems that hindered comparisons of empirical findings as well as theoretical development. Whilst information and KM systems alone do not possess the qualities required to provide organisations with sustainable competitive advantage, the bundling of KM systems with other firm resources and core competencies is the key to developing and maintaining sustainable a competitive advantage through product and process innovation. In such a position, KM systems play a major role in the conversion of learning capabilities and core competencies into a sustainable advantage by enabling and revitalizing OL (Du Plessis, 2007). KM has become the important point for arguments on mechanisms to facilitate organisations that require a greater competitive edge in the developing worldwide information economy (Clarke & Turner, 2004). Thus, according to Carlsson (2001), KM is defined as ‘the process of identifying, managing and leveraging individual and collective knowledge to support the firm becoming more competitive’ (p. 195). Managing knowledge well can develop new opportunities, create value for customers, obtain competitive advantage and improve performance (Lloria, 2008). McElroy (2003, p. 74) tells us that knowledge is a product and that it comes into existence only after it is produced. After it is produced, we codify and share it. Yet, he also tells us that it is a natural resource (McElroy, 2003, p. 42). He continues to state that members of human social systems are attracted to one another on the basis of shared interests. He concludes by explaining how learning emerges and with a description of how learning that emerges finds embodiment in the workplace across geographical boundaries. Authors (Tsai, 2001, 2002) have observed that subsidiaries and headquarters are geographically dispersed. There are several studies (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Maltz, Souder, & Kumar, 2001) that has examined and discussed various aspects of knowledge transfer between headquarters and subsidiaries; and between subsidiaries and their different units. However, these studies provide fewer suggestions about OL, innovation values developed through intra-organisational level of KM activities. More needs to be understood about OL, KM, and innovation experiences, considering the large number of geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in private education organisations operating today in Singapore. The results of this research contributes to, the collective relationships and network, organisational characteristics and structures, tacit and overt values perspective of the organisational experience, learning and knowledge based view of innovation processes in a number of ways. The social and collective nature of OL, KM, and innovation experiences has achieved more importance, which brings new phenomena, such as culture, power and politics into the focus of research. The recent literature (Gherardi, 2006, 2012; Kanchana et al., 2011) has opened up and validated new ways for exploring the factors that facilitate OL KM and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment.

42

2 Literature Review

Kanchana et al. (2011) explored the leadership influences and the relationship of OL, KM and innovation. Hernes (2004) investigated tangible structures, organisation by regulation and binding, social relations that depict an organisation in terms of bonding and thought that describes an organisation by thinking. In this study, the holistic and emergent nature of OL, KM, and innovation experiences in the organisation are investigated in the light of social innovation (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Taatila et al., 2006), architectural innovation (Balestrin et al., 2008; Leiponen & Helfat, 2010) and cultural innovation (Johannessen, 2013; Xu, 2011) facilitating OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in a PEI. As PEIs face continuous performance challenges, they need spaces that enable learning at work, which in turn produces new modes of operation and innovation.

2.6 Innovation The presented features of innovation theory are reflected across broad ranging disciplines. The following review of its characteristics is derived primarily from management literature. The value of the new sciences in understanding organisations is emerging in a range of disciplines. Chaos theory, quantum mechanics, self-organising systems, innovation theory and leadership theory are all used to rethink organisation, learning, KM, and innovation practices. Wang and Ahmed (2004) identified organisational innovation through an extensive literature review. Research studies have examined innovation in terms of four central concepts: new ideas, people, transactions and contexts (Mikkelsen & Gronhaug, 1999; Van de Ven, 1986). The first empirical studies of organisational innovation emerged and focused on public sector organisations during the 1960s, with the focus of research shifting to major process innovation in the 1970s and 1980s. Studies on administrative innovation slowly gained impetus in the 1990s. Contemporary studies on innovation use different points of view and aspects to understand the concept’s leading inconsistencies and ambiguities. What one may see as drivers of the innovation processes within firms is social learning. The merger of the intelligence generating functions of teams with the knowledge capturing and distributive functions of KM systems has created a powerful tool for organisational innovation (Turner et al., 2012, p. 968). Viewing KM as a peopleembodied activity and the incorporation of teams as a sub-process to KM would be a natural pairing to further enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and production of organisations (Turner et al., 2012). Innovation in marketing literature is called change management (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotler, 2000). In a broad perception, change management suggests to any initiative or strategy designed to modify a company’s people through training, technology, structure, processes or a combination (Mieres, Sánchez, & Vijande, 2012). Greenwood, Hinings and Suddaby (2002) defined a model of institutional change of which a key stage was theorisation, which is defined as the ‘development and specification

2.6 Innovation

43

of abstract categories and the elaboration of chains of cause and effect. Such theoretical accounts simplify and distil the properties of practices and explain the outcomes they produce’ (p. 60). Currently, innovation management is understood as a vital mechanism to promote and facilitate the effective implementation of changes in the way organisations are managed (Barnes et al., 2004; Pitt, Bruwer, Nel, & Berthon, 1999; Vrontis, Thrassou, & Razali, 2010). Rogers (1995) defined innovation as an idea, practice, or an object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. Van de Ven (1986) defined innovation as ‘the development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within an institutional context’ (p. 604) and highlights the characteristics of innovation process. This study supports Van de Ven (1986) definition and reveals the social process of individuals and team members in constructing new knowledge and practically implementing new ideas in a geographically dispersed environment. Innovation in the wine industry (Doloreux & Lord-Tarte, 2013) was examined using a micro-firm level survey in wine firms aiming on the use of external sources of knowledge for innovation. Connell, Kriz and Thorpe (2014) conducted a community based participatory research using case studies and interviews within four industry clusters based in two countries—Australia and Dubai by examining the facilitation of knowledge sharing activities to seek competitive advantage from locating within cluster environments. Contrary to these studies (Doloreux & Lord-Tarte, 2013; Connell et al., 2014), this study explored how individual and groups’ learn, manage knowledge, and innovate across offices located in different parts of the globe. McElroy (2003) identifies, the ‘adaptive systems’ school, which recognises that innovation is a fundamental human behaviour: a product of social systems that predate corporations by millions of years. McElroy (2003) applies complexity theory to OL and emphasises that ‘living systems continuously fit themselves to their environments by determining how well competing strategies for survival work for them in practice, and then by choosing their future behaviours accordingly. In other words they ‘learn’ (p. 149). Contrary to McElroy’s (2003) study, this study applied innovation concepts to build theory about OL, KM and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation.

2.6.1 Contemporary Perspectives of Innovation Parallel to the studies on OL and KM, social research has lately focused on administrative innovation (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011), social innovation (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Taatila et al., 2006), architectural innovation (Balestrin et al., 2008; Leiponen & Helfat, 2010) and cultural innovation (Johannessen, 2013; Xu, 2011) by focusing on the corporate-level processes enabling them to reconfigure their resources. The organisational innovation consists of tangible structures, social relations and thought. This study on OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically

44

2 Literature Review

dispersed work environment in a PEI accepts these studies and reinforces innovation theory. In this study, innovation theory is the lens through which readers can understand the discussion about OL, KM, and innovation processes. It is interesting to read this book with innovation theory in understanding because the readers would conclude with a whole new perspective on their reading. This approach complies with the methodological approach in building substantive theory as well as providing input into developing theories of innovation. Social, architectural and cultural characteristics and mechanisms are established on innovation concepts that enable OL, KM, and innovation experiences. This study further enlarges the perspective in a larger context, where PEIs are theorised as an interaction between individuals, team members at the intra-organisation level. This study investigates how individuals, team members in an intra-organisational network perceive learning, manage knowledge, and implement innovation across geographically dispersed sites. This innovation study also investigated the mechanisms and activities of distance and electronic learning communication channels by its organisational members so that they could learn together, share, understand, manage knowledge, and putting new knowledge into practice amongst the organisation’s members in a PEI operating in a geographically dispersed environment. The placement of OL, KM, and innovation experiences within the organisation and the organisational relationship between managers and employees needs more understanding (Adner, 2006; Obstfeld, 2005). In summary, innovation theories establish investigation activities concerning the creation of social ties, learning, development of new knowledge, and practical implementation of innovation, McElroy (2003) offers much to the KM, OL and innovation communities. This study’s novelty is at the heart of exploring the interrelationship of OL, KM, and innovation (Kanchana et al., 2011) and the factors, characteristics and mechanisms in relation to social, architectural and cultural innovation facilitating OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed educational environment. The phenomena are explored in a PEI and contribute to the OL, KM, and innovation literature.

2.7 OL, KM, and Innovation in Geographically Dispersed Individuals and Team Members Several studies offered findings that the leader will play an important role in linking the organisation and the environment and generate learning, manage knowledge, innovation, organisational performance, competitive advantage and proactivity (Garcia-Morales, Llorens-Montes & Verdu-Jover, 2006; Kanchana et al., 2011). Research suggests that when organisations reduce barriers and encourage openness, organisations tend to promote learning and open innovation beyond organisational boundaries through encouragement of managers and use of technology (Huizingh, 2011; Spithoven et al., 2011).

2.7 OL, KM, and Innovation …

45

2.7.1 OL, KM, and Innovation Mechanisms and Activities in Geographically Dispersed Individuals and Team Members There has been significant research published—especially over the recent decade in the higher education public sector (Meenakshi, 2002)—on designing, implementing and evaluating technology support for learning, managing knowledge and innovation practices. However, less attention is given to research on how team members create, co-create, and connect in the higher education operating in a geographically dispersed working environment within a PEI sector. While public sector research can inform other research into distance and geographically dispersed sharing and learning use in local working environment for knowledge generation, there is also a need for an awareness of the impact of the range of factors, characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation practices among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. Rosenberg (2006) refers to training activities in the working environment that have the aim of improving individual and organisational performance. Foss, Woll and Moilanen (2013) argued that employees’ perceptions of organisational structure and the work environment affect idea generation and implementation. Wang et al. (2010) assert that learning in the work environment takes place in the context of use and application, and as a result, it is often embedded in work practices. They conclude that learning is more collaborative in work settings, where sharing individual knowledge, new practices and ideas with co-workers is an important part of the learning practice. The occurrence of learning, knowledge generation, and new ideas through virtual, and physical setting, is in alignment with individual and OL needs, the connection between learning and work performance, and communication among individuals. Further, Ellsworth (1995) suggested that any future inquiry into learning diffusion should take a holistic perspective: the diffusion problem to be considered as a whole, ‘innovation and its environment from acceptance or resistance perspectives may offer the most rigorous explanation of the observed phenomena’ (p. 145). Annina, Heinzen and Boutellier (2015) claim that co-location to a free accessible multi-space work space design environment that encourages knowledge creation by facilitating socialisation, externalisation and combination of knowledge. Recent studies (Annina et al., 2015; Ellsworth, 1995; Mattarelli & Gupta, 2009) suggest the benefits faced by organisations that adopt physical or virtual co-location, the measures and mechanisms that need to be in place for physical and virtual teams at geographically dispersed work environment. Therefore, Annina et al.’s (2015), Ellsworth’s (1995), and Mattarelli and Gupta’s (2009) studies indicate the novelty and benefits in taking an inductive research approach in a geographically dispersed work setting to explore the experiences of team members using technology for engaging virtual team members, travelling to disperse sites, co-locating with team members improving informal interaction resulting in more detailed flows of knowledge and generating common understanding and innovation.

46

2 Literature Review

Kanchana et al. (2011) examined learning, KM and innovation using survey and interview techniques asserting on the importance of leadership influence that establishes supportive cultures and working environment for effective KM. Whilst this book takes an integrated approach to explore the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment, the study includes the factors, characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate the experience of organisational members in a dynamic and social-cultural environment for social interaction, KM and innovation experiences in a PEI context. In this view—upon reviewing the learning, knowledge, and innovation discourses in OL, KM, and innovation management literature— three broad approaches are evident, with an emphasis on individual, collective and organisational literature, and the following sections examine the relevant learning, knowledge, and innovation discourses in the literature.

2.7.2 OL, KM, and Innovation in an Organisation with Emphasis on the Individual Kanchana et al. (2011) assert that leadership in establishing working environment will influence effective KM and KM will lead to better learning and subsequently more innovativeness in an organisation. Berglund and Andersson (2012) say that learning at work context takes place in many settings and in different ways, resulting in knowledge and skills of different kinds. Crossan et al. (1999) propose OL at an individual level, where individuals learn intuitively by experience and metaphors, interpreted through language and conversation. Nikoulou-Walker (2008) claims that there has been a considerable shift in the way that individual learning and development is understood and characterised. He argues that there has been a move from identifying training needs to identifying learning needs, suggesting that development is owned by the learner with the need rather than by the trainer seeking to satisfy that need. Current thinking suggests that needs are best developed by a partnership between the individual and the organisation and that the methods of meeting these needs are not limited only to formal courses, but to a wide range of on-the-job development methods, physical and virtual co-located teaming, organisational support approaches. Individual learning aims to expand an individual’s capacity to take efficient and effective action (Kim, 1993). Walsh (cited in Linehan, 2008) suggests that reflection on practice offers an advantage of providing a way in which learners can be supported in structuring their working experience to identify their learning from that experience. Raelin (2008) suggests that team learning takes place through dialogue, which gives team players equal power within the group and which facilitates divergent thinking rather than mutual consent. On the contrary, convergent thinking through discussion aims to identify the best solutions, views and arguments by polling different viewpoints (Senge, 1990). Individuals’ viewpoints, knowledge and identity are adaptable and can transform flexibly according to their capability, readiness and interest to

2.7 OL, KM, and Innovation …

47

engage. Individuals are distinctive: identical evidences will be interpreted differently directing to diverse outcomes (Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis, 2008; Murray, Syed, & Roberts, 2009). By virtue of knowledge’s very construction, KM is meant to start with the individual (Blackler, 1995). Individuals having a high degree of self-belief, do better on innovation as a competence (Pradeep & Mohanty, 2011). Understood from this position, organisations are to function as knowledge facilitators, a place where knowledge can be created and shared. Organisational theory implies that learning occurs, knowledge is created, and innovation as competence of individuals and should be addressed beyond the individual level. Wang et al. (2010) claim that learning’s pedagogical focus is on organisational systems, structures and policies, along with institutional forms of memory that link individual learning and OL. Kallio and Lappalainen (2015) suggest that how learning created in a complex network setting influenced new process development and innovation. They further examined how collective development in an innovation network can be approached as an organisational learning process.

2.7.3 OL, KM, and Innovation in an Organisation with Emphasis on the Team Members Moustaghfir and Schiuma (2013) say that in everyday work practices, learning, knowing and innovating new ideas are not separate activities; instead, they take place in the flow of experience, with or without one being aware of it. The learning in a geographically dispersed working environment is a knowledge society that builds upon a community of practice (Raelin, 2008). Learning in the geographically dispersed working environment can be understood as social networking between learners, which allows the creation and transfer of knowledge among individuals and groups (Koch, 2011). Koch argues that knowledge integration depends on factors that are internal and external to teams and that learning involves the integration of individual learning to develop shared understanding and collaborative ideas at a group or team level. People who share the same interests and goals start to exchange ideas and opinions in an informal and social context, expressing their opinions freely and challenging each other’s assumptions in an effort to extend their knowledge base and increase their learning (called communicative learning) (Gharaibeh, 2012). Sense (2003) discussed the importance of managing learning in project teams and describes project teams as ‘embryonic communities of practice’, as they provide a focused environment to foster learning across groups and project teams. Teambased innovation requires a balance of creative and pragmatic processes, both within teams and between teams and their organisational stakeholders (Buchel, Nieminen, Armbruster-Domeyer, & Denison, 2013). Theories of team cognition suggest that teams are most effective when team members have a shared understanding of performance-relevant knowledge

48

2 Literature Review

(DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). Closely held team mental models enhance effectiveness at the collective level by aligning the expectations and behaviours of individuals (Mohammed, Ferzandi & Hamilton, 2010). Thus, many dysfunctional patterns of organizing are sustained by sensemaking processes that lead people to make up stories about one another that are more negative than reality. Through an ‘organisational learning conversation’, people come to understand their own experience and the experience of others, which often allow them to revise their patterns of organising in positive ways (Bushe, 2009a, 2009b).

2.7.4 OL, KM, and Innovation in a Geographically Dispersed Organisation with Emphasis on Organisation Connell et al. (2014) claim that, organisations need to be in a cluster to benefit from knowledge spill overs to achieve competitive advantage and organisational learning. Learning occurs inside the organisation and at the inter-organisation and intra-organisational levels (Knight & Pye, 2005), facilitating knowledge transfer and the sharing of resources. Hillebrand and Biemans (2003) suggest that interorganisation interactions and knowledge flows may lead downstream to customers, upstream to suppliers or universities or horizontally to competitors’ knowledge flows. Reagans and McEvily indicate that network strength as well as network diversity on the intra-organisational level eases social interaction and knowledge transfer (2003). Inter-organisational learning processes involve the creation of collective knowledge and knowledge acquisition and transfer through resources, absorptive capacity, combinative capability and trust, and thus, learning at the inter-organisational level is emergent and underpinned by social interactions (Kerosuo, 2006). Within organisations, alliance networks can enhance OL and innovation (Ahuja, 2000; Soh, 2003). Amabile (1988) pointed out that, to develop environments that support innovation, an organisation must clearly demonstrate that creativity and innovation are valued by focusing communication within the organisation on the excitement and potential of the ideas being generated and the work being accomplished. In other words, organisational qualities, such as learning, trust, organisational motivation, resources and innovation management practices, may greatly influence individuals in an organisation. OL results from the individual learning of existing employees and the knowledge contributed by staff entering the organisation (Rhodes, Lok, Hung & Fang, 2008). Overall, the place of work holds the promise of a powerful learning environment (Linehan, 2008). Learning in context is becoming increasingly important both for organisations that require professional development to create a dynamic, flexible workforce, and for higher education institutions that recognise the working environment as a legitimate site of learning. Learning in context deliberately and perceptively merges theory with practice and acknowledges the intersection of explicit and tacit forms of knowing at both individual and collective levels (Linehan, 2008). At an organisational level, learning occurs when individuals and

2.7 OL, KM, and Innovation …

49

groups develop routines which are embodied as structures, systems and strategies into the organisation. No organisation can ever learn, develop knowledge, and implement innovation without building on the learning, KM, and innovation practices of its individuals and groups. Halinen, Salmi and Havila (1999) states that network relationships or intraorganisational relationship exist between university partnerships, internal customers and students as customers, government and non-government bodies and competitors. McLoughlin and Horan (2000) claim that the network relationships develop as participants make investments and adaptations and as they cooperate and interact. Thus, the behaviour of the system as a whole emerges from the manner in which the various parts interact (Tsoukas, 2009). Moreover, many different types of organisations can act as members of the network, where incremental and radical innovations (Nidumolu, Prahalad, & Rangaswami, 2009) emerge as an outcome of stakeholder co-creation (Ryan, Mitchell, & Daskou, 2012). Several works are available to support the notion that learning, KM, and innovation processes are central to the social learning experience and at place of work environment (Berglund & Andersson, 2012; Cameron, 2002; Kanchana et al., 2011; Wiig, 1997). These concepts of co-emergent learning, which entwine learning, knowledge, innovation and geographically dispersed working environment, are evident across the literature on learning and KM. Innovation theories, too, inform contemporaneous understandings of the fields and contribute to their convergence. This offers a new approach and new opportunities for research, and innovation theory suggests new language diffusion for its consideration.

2.7.5 Developing Theory and Practice Innovation theories are applied across a broad range of fields. Innovation is a widely studied subject, and there are many different approaches to describing the phenomenon (Taatila et al., 2006). A brief sweep of the literature uncovers innovation theorists’ approaches to diffusion (Rogers, 2003), globalization (Urry, 2003) and a globalizing work force (McElroy, 2003). Taatila (2004) states that innovation contains social aspects, and there is a need to construct a research approach focusing on the social questions. A few other authors (Pot & Vaas, 2008; Franssila, Okkonen, Savolainen, & Talja, 2012) claim that the innovation process takes place within a cultural environment, which interacts with all phases and parts of the process. Additionally, Birkinshaw et al. (2008) argue that change agents can play a major role in building legitimacy for innovation beyond the boundaries of an organisation. Kickul et al. (2010) argue that innovation relies on social capital, and they describe innovation as a knowledge-intensive process (Mulej, 2010). The application of innovation theory in organisations and KM practice has provided a wide range of perspectives and also been discussed for many years. Innovation also informs discussions about complexity and about learning the important

50

2 Literature Review

differences between KM and OL. From empirical evidence, it is clear that organisations must implement relevant characteristics and mechanisms to facilitate the interrelationship of OL, KM and innovation. The intersection between OL, KM, and innovation is informed by a geographically dispersed educational perspectives developed through innovation. This research progresses in the search to develop a fuller understanding of OL, KM and innovation. The findings can be utilised in the analysis and assessment of coordinative OL, KM, and innovation practices between geographically dispersed work groups in multi-unit organisations. The findings can also be used in the development of solutions for managing knowledge and communication in geographically dispersed work organisations and communities (Franssila, Okkonen, Savolainen, & Talja, 2012). This study demonstrates that the chosen PEI does have an embedded socio-cultural system, knowledge culture and transfer mechanism, but that culture may not translate to actual learning. This poses interesting challenges for OL, KM, and innovation (Kanchana et al., 2011) in PEI operating in a geographically dispersed environment. In using innovation theory to understand social structures (Alguezaui & Filieri, 2010), social networks (Alvarenga Neto, 2007), knowledge exchange across boundaries (Carlile, 2004), KM processes and innovation in organisations and cognitive thinking (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011), it is essential to make modelling choices explicit. The social, architectural and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private education organisation can be understood by building theory.

2.8 Converging Discourses of OL, KM, and Innovation In the literature presented, OL, KM, and innovation shaped by individuals, team members and organisations are shown to be mutually informing. The themes across the discourses merge in increasingly fresh notions of learning, knowledge, and innovation. It is argued that these converging themes are congruent with the central themes in innovation management theory, and innovation is identified as an integrating device across traditionally discrete fields. In this study, learning is recognised as an active process of individual and collective development within a geographically dispersed working environment through engagement and interaction. Although the individual can be seen to learn individually, this learning occurs in a social context within which the collective of individuals can also be seen to learn; learning in this perspective is at the individual and collective levels at the same time. The learning, knowledge, and new ideas that emerge from the interaction with work are constructed in the active engagement of the individual, collective and in a geographically dispersed working site. Links between OL, KM, and innovation are illustrated as occurring in three main themes: firstly, the social relationship and networks that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members; knowledge

2.8 Converging Discourses of OL, KM, and Innovation

51

sharing mechanisms and activities that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in individuals and team members; and the role of social cognitive schema in geographically dispersed individuals and team members that facilitates emergent learning, KM and innovation. These themes are developed to support the claim that the links provide an important opportunity for research and for the development of new contributions to theory. In support of this argument, and leading to a demand for research of the type offered here, the available research is critiqued and calls for research in this area are presented. Innovation theory is currently used to support integration across the fields of inquiry of OL and KM in the work of McElroy (2003). Innovation theory is currently used to support integration across the fields of inquiry of OL and KM theory in the work of Choo and Johnston (2004), Brachos et al. (2007), Hardwick, Anderson and Cruickshank (2013), Murray and Blackman (2006), and across KM, OL and workplace learning theory in the work of Kennedy (2006, 2010), Lantz (2011), and Passila, Oikarinen and Kallio (2013). Innovation concepts presents a way of thinking about the characteristics and mechanisms that enable OL, KM, and innovation experiences that assures new considerations in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Several studies (Kamya et al., 2011; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013) based on a cross-sectional survey design looked at the relationship between OL and competitive advantage with the effect of KM and innovation. Kanchana et al. (2011) examined learning, KM and innovation using a survey and interview technique asserting the importance of leadership influence. These studies offered findings about the interrelationship of OL, KM, and innovation and described the opportunities referring to the factors, characteristics and mechanisms that influence individual and groups’ learning, KM, and innovation practices. Convergence across the contemporary literature of OL, KM, and innovation, however, is increasingly clear. Taken in its broadest sense, KM is an ancient phenomenon. The competences of employees and how they are used to improve organisational capabilities have always been key factors in economic performance, and wise managers have always been aware of the need to utilise and develop knowledge in the interest of the organisation (Lundvall & Nielsen, 2007). The need for more understanding about the characteristics and mechanisms for transferring learning experiences, managing knowledge and understanding among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation is essential. It is well-known that transferring a ‘best practice’ from one environment to another is highly problematic (Lundvall & Tomlinson, 2002). Lundvall and Nielsen (2007) suggest one way to overcome this problem is by linking OL, KM, and innovation creation with one another. The knowledge economy and society (Dean & Kretschmer, 2007; Martin-deCastro, Delgado-Verde, López-Sáez & Navas-López, 2011) are characterised by economic globalization, advances of technological domains, the progressive primacy of knowledge-intensive business service industries, and changes in customers’ needs and preferences. Hence, a new competitive dynamic is appearing (Diaz-Diaz et al.,

52

2 Literature Review

2008) in which organisations give increasing importance to knowledge and intellectual assets when facing competitors. Thus, recognising that new knowledge and learning, and its effective implementation, are key production factors in achieving and maintaining competitive advantage (Galende, 2006). OL, KM, and innovation provide insight which draws on the social interaction, construction and management of knowledge, and implementing innovation and in developing OL, KM, and innovation theories. This notion has become an important one for influential writers, such as McElroy (2003). The influence of educational theory on constructions of learning, knowledge, and innovation in OL, KM, and innovation theory is illustrated in work that highlights the collaborative learning, ‘social embeddedness’ of knowledge and its management, and practical implementation of innovation (Brachos et al., 2007; Donate & Guadamillas, 2011; Kanchana et al., 2011). Powell (2012) explained that universities all engender deep, meaningful and maturing conversations with their partners which follow a cycle of virtuous knowledge sharing and holistic and co-creating team-working seems to work well when they follow the knowledge-sharing cycle with external partners. Developing richer and deeper conversations between all partners in such an academic enterprise process is a prerequisite for sustainable success and learning ways and means of mutual coaching and collective learning practices for organisational effectiveness. Knowledge in action is the collective experience of the members of a community of practice, which is surfaced by peer practitioners as they engage in problemfocused dialogue (Meyer, 2003). Academic knowledge creation takes place physically, mentally and/or virtually in interaction, in ‘place’ (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40). Interaction is bound by time, space, participants, their different contexts and their trust for each other (Von Krogh, Ichijo, & Nonaka, 2000, p. 49). Knowledge is socially constructed, since its justification is done within the academic community (Hautala, 2011). Although individuals express their knowledge, the basic unit of knowledge creation is a group that shares goals, passions and routines (Amina & Cohendent, 2004, p. 74). Johannessen and Skaalsvik (2015) suggest that a creative energy field is conceptualised as a spot in an organisation where a group of creative individuals collaborate and work together for developing new ideas and putting new ideas into practice. The learning, knowledge community as a whole should be responsible for the development and advancement of collective knowledge (cf. Brown & Duguid, 1991). Jashapara (2010) claim that KM is an effective learning process with the exploration, exploitation and sharing of organisational knowledge applying suitable technologies in a specific environment for improving an organisation’s intellectual capital, innovation, and learning capabilities. Kimmerle, Cress and Held (2010) suggest the potential adoption of specific technologies for OL, KM, and innovation as they provide opportunities to combine processes of individual and collective learning. Growing attention to similar works in KM literature points to the importance of socially embedded activity in the development of individual consciousness. Discussion across the literature about the making or creation of knowledge addresses an inconsistent notion that has its roots in the epistemological debate about the nature of knowledge and the individuality of the social being. Meyer (2003) rejects

2.8 Converging Discourses of OL, KM, and Innovation

53

this view and proposes a ‘dia-logic’ approach in line with Bottrup’s (2005) ‘verbalisation of experience’ and storytelling (Leblanc, Leblanc, & Hogg, 2006; Oates, Bresciani, & Clematide, 2002; Reamy, 2002; Swap, Leonard, Shields, & Abrams, 2001; Whyte & Classen, 2012). These approaches argue for the need to conceive managerial and administrative knowledge as dialogical knowledge and explore the implications for the preparation of education leaders or organisational leaders. Telling the stories, in other words the verbalization of experience (Bottrup, 2005), did not turn out to be very difficult. If the sessions were taking place in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust, the participating members would be quite good at telling stories about (or from) their own workplace (Bottrup, 2005). Also, the direct transformation and use (Oates et al., 2002) of what could be called tools or concrete procedures would seem to be rather easy. Reamy (2002) suggests that storytelling is arguably the best way to transfer tacit knowledge, in that one is able to convey information and context in a form that is easy for people to understand. Leblanc et al. (2006), remark that stories make information meaningful, tacit knowledge more explicit, and allow information to be organised into learnable chunks. Swap et al. (2001) defines an organisational story as ‘a detailed narrative of past management actions, employee interactions or other intra- or extra-organisational events that are communicated informally within the organisation’. Recently, Whyte and Classen (2012) examined the KM literature, in particular relating to stories and storytelling as a means of conveying tacit knowledge within organisations; the main contribution of the research is an attempt at constructing KM taxonomy for organisational stories. Von Hayek (1945) took pains to demonstrate that economic and organisational problems cannot be resolved if we assume the presence of a mind equipped with all relevant data and knowledge to interpret them. Therefore, the problem is in no way solved if we can show that all the facts, if they were known to a single mind, would uniquely determine the solution; instead, we must show how a solution is produced by the interactions of people, each of whom possesses only partial knowledge. To assume all the knowledge to be given to a ‘single mind in the same manner’ in which we assume it to be given to us is to assume the problem away and to disregard everything that is important and significant in the real world (Von Hayek, 1945, p. 526). Practitioners arrive at good judgment by engaging in a conversation with members of their community of practice, their peers or members of their network (Meyer, 2003). Given that the university, as an institution, is always likely to favour technical over dialogical knowledge (Meyer, 2003), it is important to demonstrate that the notion of ‘intuition’, ‘experience’ or ‘tacit knowledge’ is anchored in the best traditions of pragmatism, as well as in the current surge of interest in KM. However, in addition to dialogical knowledge, the use of technology as an enabler dominates recent literature (Mortati & Cruickshank, 2012; Vuori & Okkonen, 2012), as compared to the use of technology to trigger knowledge creation or transfer of new knowledge. The growing focus on the innovation in the knowing organisation is apparent too in the KM OL, and innovation literature focusing on perspectives of organisational structures (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1969) for organisational members to

54

2 Literature Review

share knowledge with shared understanding. Weick (1995) also described how people enact or actively construct the environment that they attend to by bracketing experience and by creating new features in the environment. Sensemaking is precipitated by a change or difference in the environment that creates discontinuity in the flow of experience that engages people and activities of an organisation (Weick, 2001). Choo and Johnston (2004) claim that an organisation’s capacity to learn and innovate depends on its ability to manage and integrate a complex, unpredictable network of processes in which participants enact and negotiate their own meanings of what is going on, what they stumble upon and how they ‘engage with new knowledge to make it work; and work within as well as improvise around set rules and routines to solve tough problems’ (p. 78). Innovation theory describes the social process of communicating a new idea among the members of a community over time. The focus of the theory is not only on awareness and knowledge but also on the attitude change process that leads to the practice or adoption of an innovation (Rogers & Singhal, 1996). Knowledge in innovation systems is seen to emerge from heterogeneity (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion is more rapid and effective, which displays a higher degree of contagion with a higher frequency of contact and interactivity among heterophilous units in a system (Rogers, 2003, p. 19). Diffusion occurs in complex systems where networks connecting system members are overlapping, multiple and complex. Diffusion occurs most often in heterogeneous zones, that is, in transitional spaces where sufficient differentiation among network members occurs. Thus, Lundvall and Nielsen (2007) conclude that one of the most important tasks of KM is not to steer in detail the processes of knowledge creation but rather to create ‘framework conditions’ such as technology infrastructure that stimulate agents within and outside the organisation to engage in interactive learning. Whereas, Foss et al. (2013) claim that supportive colleagues and managers affect idea generation and implementation of new ideas. This setting directs the author to explore the factors that facilitate learning, KM, and the generation and implementation of new ideas by individuals and team members among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation.

2.8.1 Social Relationship and Networks Facilitates OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team Research has also shown that collaborative interaction embedding organisational learning (OL) in firms enable innovation (Kallio & Lappalainen, 2015; Senge, 1990). Studies in (Coda, 2010; Kamya et al., 2011; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013) scientifically tested the relationships between OL and innovation for achieving competitive advantage and have been carried out only in a small number of areas. Research has discussed OL about the acquisition of knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Some research has also looked at how acquired knowledge is shared in organisations (Argote, 2012;

2.8 Converging Discourses of OL, KM, and Innovation

55

Berkes, 2009; Hsu et al., 2007). Few other studies examined the success in innovation implementation (Johnson, 2001; Ovretveit et al., 2012). Several studies (Darroch, 2005; Johannessen & Olsen, 2009; Quinn & Strategy, 2013) have been carried out scientifically testing that KM and innovation provide competitive advantage and improve innovativeness in the organisations. Darroch (2005) and López-Nicolás (2011) examine the relationship between innovation and KM and assert a positive relationship between KM and innovation for achieving organisational performance. These findings show that both variables—OL and innovation, KM and innovation— contribute positively to business performance, and that OL and KM affects innovation. The missing element in the body of knowledge is investigating the factors that enable OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in a private education organisation. More needs to be understood about the interrelationship of all three variables-OL, KM, and innovation. Collective learning is based around reciprocity (Miller, 2011), and reciprocal knowledge sharing is also an underlying premise for those engaging in communities of practice (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Collective knowledge is, strategically, the most important type of organisational knowledge (Spender, 1996), combining skills and capabilities to produce competitive advantage. Leiponen (2006) also found that in order to contribute positively to innovation performance, knowledge should be made collective and shared among organisational members. The perspectives of innovation management collaboration designates a process involving at least two separated but interacting entities, which are individuals, teams, communities and/or organisations that create and exchange knowledge, and also share a common goal (Barbaroux, 2012). In extant literatures, KM has been recognised as a key instrument for achieving goal, for the improvement of organisational effectiveness and performance (Zack, McKeen, & Singh, 2009). Weick (1995) described how people actively construct the environment that they attend to by bracketing experience and by creating new features in the environment. Sensemaking is impetuous, as change engages the people and activities of an organisation. The outcome of sensemaking is a shared interpretation of how the environment is changing and what direction the organisation wants to take in a changing environment. The ‘knowing organisation’ by Choo and Johnston (2004) suggests that the knowledge of an organisation is dispersed and embedded in its activities of sensemaking, knowledge creation and decision making. Thus, organisational knowledge is geographically dispersed in beliefs and interpretations that frame sensemaking: the experience and intuitions that enable knowledge creation. At the same time, the mobilization of this knowledge requires the continuous interweaving of these sets of OL, KM, and innovation activities into a single canvas. Collaborative innovations must be capable of accessing, diffusing and integrating heterogeneous pieces of knowledge tanks to establish the relationships among various partners. It must also be capable of coordinating multicultural, cross-functional teams made up of heterogeneous individuals and organisational units (Edmonson & Nembhard, 2009). Barbaroux’s (2012) conceptualization argues for a view of collaborative innovation as a complex and multidimensional OL process ‘affected by the contextual

56

2 Literature Review

factors such as the organisation structure, information, communication and control process, which impact on the way individuals learn’ (Antonacopoulou, 2006, p. 456). The individual or the organisation as the base unit for analysis in learning is seen as redundant from an innovationist perspective. For some theorists (Nardi, Whittaker, & Schwarz, 2002; Wofford, Ellinger, & Watkins, 2013), a unit of analysis is not at ‘the group level rather, but at the individual level as personal social networks come to be more and more important’ (p. 205). Bourbodox (2012) describes ‘an in-depth analysis of technological and organisational attributes, paying particular attention to the functions, competences and objectives assigned to the various individuals and organisations participating in the project’. Other theorists, such as Quintane et al. (2011, p. 939) argue that the key element in distinguishing between innovation adoption and innovation creation is not the existence of the knowledge linked to an innovation, but its availability and use by the unit of analysis that provides a more appropriate basic unit for inspection. In innovation, learning and knowledge are at once both individual and collective (Kennedy, 2006, p. 79).

2.8.2 Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms and Activities Facilitates OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team OL, KM, and innovation experiences are also about the shared understandings that emerge in the absence of any plan or programme for outcomes. Knowledge is the essence of the innovation process (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), and authors usually consider the outcome of the innovation process to be new knowledge, which is implicitly equated with innovation. Du Plessis (2007, p. 21) defines innovation as the creation of new knowledge and ideas to facilitate new business outcomes, aimed at improving internal business processes and structures. KM is the formalization of, and access to, experience, knowledge and expertise that create new capabilities, enable superior performance, encourage innovation and enhance customer value (Gloet & Terziovski, 2004). KM further allows collaboration, knowledge sharing, continual learning and improvement and is a mechanism through which innovation complexity can be addressed (Cavusgil, Calantone, & Zhao, 2003). It assists in managing new knowledge created through the innovation process but also in managing existing knowledge as a resource used as input to the innovation process. Innovation as a knowledge process is aimed at creating and implementing new knowledge, wherein knowledge is acquired and shared. Quintane et al. (2011, p. 938) argue that innovation is, in essence, new knowledge. The authors provided an extended definition that understands innovation as the creation of new knowledge that is necessary to ‘replicate the process’ leading to innovation outcomes. In this conceptualization, the knowledge needs to be duplicable, considered new in the context it is introduced to and demonstrated useful in

2.8 Converging Discourses of OL, KM, and Innovation

57

practice (Quintane et al., 2011, p. 940). In an innovation process, the generation of an innovation is characterised by the creation of the knowledge needed to understand how the innovation was generated. It can thus be inferred that an innovation, as an artefact, contains the knowledge needed to understand how it has been created, and how to create it again. In other words, the knowledge that is created during the innovation process and that allows the process to be understood constitutes the essence of the innovation process, and it defines the innovation as an outcome. KM embeds within the often complex, social and technical interactions involving individuals, groups or organisations attempting to create an effective KM environment (Lee & Choi, 2003). Moffett et al. (2003) suggest that individual motivators may enable employee willingness to participate and engage in the obtaining and sharing of knowledge. Organisational characteristics play a strategic and crucial role in influencing organisational change, innovation and outcomes, especially in KM areas (Pan & Scarbrough, 1998; Park, Ribiere, & Schulte, 2004). KM has two main fields: one that tends to focus on knowledge sharing and the other that tends to focus on knowledge making. Knowledge making accounts for the connection between KM and innovation management processes. Knowledge sharing accounts for the ties between KM and OL. A number of studies have demonstrated that knowledge sharing is essential because it enables organisations to enhance innovation performance and reduce redundant learning efforts (Calantone et al., 2002; Scarbrough, 2003). OL and KM processes are particularly well suited to model innovation management as they view the organisation much like a living entity concerned with independent existence and survival. It is a special kind of dynamic system, since it has the property of adaptation, meaning that it has the ‘ability to consciously alter its system configuration and influence its current and future survival’ (McCarthy, 2003, p. 730). Innovations are better described and understood by assumptions about a dynamic and socio-cultural environment (Rogers, 1995). It is an environment in which subsystem agents operate autonomously to achieve a common goal (Dooley, 1996). Each individual member possesses a functional autonomy, namely, a personalised account that only the individual member controls. They can then react to environmental changes and perturbations rapidly in a non-linear fashion and synchronously with other individual members. Thus, innovation offers a valuable theoretical perspective on efficiency and performance (Tilebein, 2006). In a dynamic system, knowledge emerges from the participative problem solving of its agents in geographically dispersed knowledge processing environments (Firestone & McElroy, 2003). A knowledge-centric system recognises the value of information and knowledge in decision making (Bennet & Bennet, 2004). It will connect people to people, people to systems, and systems to people to ensure availability and delivery of the right information at the right time for decision and action. They have applied this approach to describe the cohesiveness and selective pressures that operate on dynamic systems. ‘As knowledge management has risen in importance and managerial fashionability, the hype and confusion has multiplied, leading some to argue that knowledge management is a fad of little long-term significance’ (Spender, 2005, p. 127). The

58

2 Literature Review

effective use of knowledge is often argued to be the key to competitive success in the global economy (Spender, 2005). Not only is the effective management of knowledge argued to be a critical element of the innovations needed to be successful, KM is, of itself, a major ‘innovation’ (Kanchana et al., 2011).

2.8.3 Social Cognitive Schema Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team Facilitate Emergent Learning, KM, and Innovation The concept of a cognitive schema, cognitive maps, and mental model has been described by theorists from diverse disciplines (Rook, 2013, p. 38). Rook defines a mental model as a concentrated, personally constructed, internal conception of external phenomena (historical, existing or projected) or experience that affects how a person acts. Argyris and Schön (1978) based their theory of OL on the premise that individuals shape their actions on their mental models. Cognitive schema play a central and unifying role in representing objects, states of affairs, sequences of events, the way the world is, and the social and psychological actions of daily life (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Thus, cognitive schema provides a foundation on which people’s attitudes, beliefs, and patterns of behaviour are built. A cognitive schema consists of concepts and relationships an individual uses to understand various situations or environments (Barr, Stimpert, & Huff, 1992). Cognitive schema contain decision rules for filtering information (selective perception) and help simplify decision making by considering only the relevant or important information (Day, 1994; Walsh, 1995). Senge et al. (1994) suggested that people’s assumptions, mental images and cognitive schemas are important when making decisions and framing actions. They are defined as cognitive representations or constructs of situations that may be real, imagined or hypothetical (Al-Diban & Ifenthaler, 2011; Gentner & Stevens, 1983). Allee (1997) stated that mental models are ‘important cornerstones for building knowledge and defining some of the cognitive processes that support change and learning’ (p. 11). The predominant cognitive schema in the world of enterprise and work are shortterm and personal-gain seeking and use either/or logic; those attitudes prevail widely across society and its organisations, whether private or public (Wirtenberg, Russell, & Lipsky, 2009). Discussions of challenging mental models in learning at working environment are found in cognitive discourse, where Eden (1992) describes the process as ‘comprehending the mapper’s understanding of particular, and selective, elements of thoughts of an individual, group or organisation’ (p. 262). People’s cognitive schema are viewed as being significant in achieving organisational outcomes, on the assumption that mental models influence people’s acts. A fundamental issue in the area of OL, then, is the relation between cognitive schema, learning and performance (Jensen & Rasmussen, 2004). Both Senge (1990) and Kim

2.8 Converging Discourses of OL, KM, and Innovation

59

(1993) imply that mental models are internally integrated or that people carry something in their heads that is embedded in their minds. Ignoring the mechanics of the learning process, learning at the individual level can be conceptualised as the process of obtaining and retaining information that leads to changes and improvements in action and decision making. Hayes and Allinson (1996) suggest that OL occurs when the ‘mental models, schema or cognitive maps that guide behaviour’ (p. 12) are modified through recognition of a change in information concerning an organisation’s environment. This echoes Argyris and Schön (1978), who see OL occurring ‘when individuals, acting from their own images and maps, detect a mismatch of outcomes to expectation which confirms or disconfirms organisation theory-in-use’ (p. 19, italics added), and Stata (1989), who describes OL as occurring through ‘shared insights, knowledge and mental models’ (p. 64). Cognitive schema are a means by which organisations and individuals create and share meaning, thereby enabling a common understanding and the development of knowledge (Pruzan, 2001), but shared cognitive schema can be significant barriers to change (Mezias, Grinyer, & Guth, 2001). Changes in procedures have resulted in many instances, observations and questions posed by employees at low levels, which McElroy (2003) terms deferential approaches. He describes a learning process which is independent and driven by individuals’ personal experiences. It is a reflection on those experiences and judgments about their meaning and a time when value is shared with others. ‘Knowledge claim’ applies to learners who compare what they know to what other people know, seeking to ‘validate’ their knowledge in the community. The knowledge claims that are validated in a larger organisation may be adopted, and the knowledge produced by the community may be put it into practice (Loan, 2006, p. 131). In KM literature, the emergence of mental models in Holland’s (1995) work emphasises knowledge as naturally developing in a dynamic system. Knowledge is inherently intricate, and a knowledge environment is a dynamic system comprised of many interacting identities, and cause and effect relationships are intertwined and cannot be distinguished (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Employees who are mentally preoccupied with their job will be more focused when using their time thinking radically out of the box and aiming for innovative improvements (Bysted, 2013). This focuses theory and practice on the search for knowledge ‘levers’. These knowledge levers are those triggers within the knowledge ecosystem that lead to generative, rather than adaptive, change. Therefore, rather than the replication of knowledge, focus is given to innovation. McElroy (2003) describes new KM, or demand side KM, to be knowledge production and processing. This cannot be run by an information technology staff because it really involves creating an environment that supports employees’ natural tendencies to learn individually, especially in groups. He identifies the ‘adaptive systems’ school, recognizing that innovation is a fundamental human behaviour and a product of social systems. Holland (1998) recognises that knowledge is complex in nature and that emergence and self-organisation are effective ways to cope with complex systems. The

60

2 Literature Review

solution, therefore, is to evade the control mechanisms of institutions and let knowledge environments develop and emerge naturally (Loan, 2006). The complexity of innovation has also been increased by growth in the amount of knowledge available to organisations as a basis for innovation. Innovation is extremely dependent on the availability of knowledge; therefore, the complexity created by the explosion of richness and the reach of knowledge has to be identified and managed to ensure successful innovation (Adams & Lamont, 2003; Cardinal, Allessandri, & Turner, 2001; Shani, Sena, & Olin, 2003). KM plays an invaluable role in innovation (McElroy, 2003), but it is not solely focused on innovation: it creates an environment conducive for innovation to take place (Du Plessis, 2007, p. 26). Recently the focus has been upon using knowledge to promote and support innovation within both teams and companies (Newell, Robertson, & Scarborough, 2002). Cognitive schema in a multidisciplinary team can provide opportunity for a shared generation of knowledge for processing innovation while also being open to external influence (Davison & Blackman, 2005). Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek (1973) explain that the ‘distinguishing characteristic of an innovation is that instead of being an external object, it is the perception of a social unit that decides its newness’ (p. 14). They also offer a definition of innovation as ‘any idea, practice, or product that is perceived as new by the potential unit of adoption’ (Zaltman et al., 1973, p. 50). This concept of collective perception links innovation, knowledge and cognitive schema in teams. As illustrated in the previous chapter, McElroy’s (2003) work problematizes the viewpoints presented in KM, OL, and innovation theories, which lay focus on the individual, as ‘all knowledge begins in the minds of individuals’ (p. 95) prior to grouping and shared learning (p. 151). The knowledge production that McElroy describes promotes collaboration. For McElroy, this focus is in disagreement with other theories of knowledge. Stacey (2003b) concurs with McElroy (2003), suggesting that real communities are collaborative and, once formed, act as the ‘developmental breeding ground for new ideas, new knowledge, and potential innovation’ (p. 151). McElroy (2003) shows us that if our organisational procedures are aligned with the way that people naturally organise themselves to learn, then our organisations will be more innovative.

2.8.4 Contemporary Perspectives on OL, KM, and Innovation The increasing recognition of exploring organisational experience in OL, KM, and innovation in organisations presents opportunities for integration across discourses. Individuals, groups and organisations form an integral part of innovation (Lundvall & Nielsen, 2007). This calls for an integrated organisational approach to OL, KM, and innovation that involves skills at the individual, group and organisation levels, such as leadership, teamwork and learning to learn (Roffe, 1999). Dobni (2010) investigates the state of innovation theory in the literature on organisational theory. Organisational theory is derived from both academic lineage and

2.8 Converging Discourses of OL, KM, and Innovation

61

practitioner experience (Kessler, 2001; Starbuck, 2003). As organisations can benefit from the emphasis of attention placed on the characteristics of OL, KM and innovative systems and innovation theory can be applied and benefit from elaborating on its application in organisations. Cowan, Sanditov and Weehuizen (2011) claim that social relations offer a valuable theoretical perspective on efficiency and innovation. They assert that socio-cultural systems exhibit both efficient emergent order and emergent innovative evolution, concluding that dynamic and socially cohesive systems can contribute to a deeper and more integrative understanding of the multiple issues involved in innovation and efficiency on all organisational levels. Atuahene-Gima (2005) and Yalcinkaya, Calantone and Griffith (2007) posit that successful innovation requires OL and knowledge to transform a company’s key capacities. OL is experiential, and in the development of innovations, organisational knowledge changes as a result of experience (Cyert & March, 1992). Therefore, innovation processes are accompanied by OL processes (Holmqvist, 2004). Dougherty and Hardy (1996) state that innovation-to-organisation connections in areas such as resource availability, collaborative structures and processes, and a company’s strategy are vital to the success of sustained innovation; the radicalness of an innovation influences each of those factors (Day, 1994). Lately, the research on innovation has widened to include consideration of the impact of social networks on innovation (Taatila et al., 2006). Very few studies (e.g. Preckel, Holling, & Wiese, 2006), in relation to innovation, have focused on a more inclusive and holistic cognitive ability as a factor underlying innovation. The intelligence of individuals, team members and organisations has been extensively acclaimed as a major factor accounting for organisational performance in several areas and has been studies in several disciplines. In order to gain insights on questions about the social interaction, the network structure, the cognitive process of the learning and organisational knowledge, there is a need to better understand the full social processes and environment that are required for them to evolve. Therefore, there is a need for developing the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences and is constantly put forth as concepts, while the empirical and research-based evidence for its importance has been scarce. Innovation is used with some frequency in attempts to bridge both theory and practice divides (Connell et al., 2014; Doloreux & Lord-Tarte, 2013). Therefore, building on the OL, KM, and innovation literature, the author positions the study in a PEI and uses the term perceived usefulness of knowledge to operationalise OL, KM, and innovation experiences and to present the notion that social, architectural and cultural innovation factors, characteristics and mechanisms facilitates OL, knowledge usefulness and innovation activities within intra-organisational levels and members working in a geographically dispersed environment. As notions of innovation have entered the mainstream in organisational and educational theory, interdisciplinary perspectives are invited and reflected upon. Nonaka (1994) suggests that innovation occurs when employees share their knowledge with the organisation and when this shared knowledge generates new and common insights. Research to date has tended to focus on learning and knowledge as situated

62

2 Literature Review

and active in the individuals and groups’ head referred to as tacit knowledge generated in a local office environment (Kennedy, 2010; Vera & Crossan, 2003). More needs to be understood how tacit knowledge needs to be shared, learnt, and transferred between individuals and groups located in offices across various parts of the world. Therefore, OL, KM, and innovation experiences need to be explored in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private educational organisation to gain more understanding. Such discussions highlight the need for deeper investigations of notions of factors in relation to social, architectural and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms that enable OL, KM, and innovation contributes to understandings developed in the OL, KM, and innovation discourses; and this points to new avenues for both research and theory development.

2.9 Opportunity for New Perspectives The emerging shared themes specify the need for more understanding through combined means about the social relationship and networks that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individual and team members;—as well as knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members, and social cognitive schema in geographically dispersed individual and collective which causes emergent learning, KM and innovation. Sound empirical research begins with a strong grounding in related literature, identifies a research gap and proposes research questions that address the gap (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, p. 26). The research called for reflects a growing interest in OL, KM, and innovation fields, and constructions of knowledge and contribution to the body of knowledge that support the research are broad. However, progressively more epistemology is addressed explicitly. This research is developed through scholarly methodologies supported with an epistemological viewpoint. Performance, culture, technology, training, tacit knowledge, competence and human resource development are examples of the distinct emphasis of research in the illustration provided above. Few existing studies attempt to signify the experience of organisational members within the context of their work in a local organisation. This study achieves an exploration of the experience of the members of a geographically dispersed working environment through investigating the relationships between their learning, the organisation’s knowledge, and innovation processes. There is little evidence of research which attempts such an elaboration through the design of a methodological approach. This allows for the emergence of a new point of view through discussion. Such research is needed to bridge the gap between discussion areas and to gain a fuller understanding of the phenomenon of geographically dispersed individuals and team members learning to learn, manage knowledge and implement innovation in a private education organisation.

2.9 Opportunity for New Perspectives

63

2.9.1 Calls for Research There have been calls for research that utilise narrative inquiry in new theoretical contexts, particularly to explore different industries. The theoretical perspectives advanced in OL, KM, and innovation literature are positive and reductionist, with authors continually calling for empirical study to investigate the theory that is advanced. The current study addresses both the theoretical and geographical extensions of research, providing a unique theoretical framework and using data from Singapore. Furthermore, there are additional links between a qualitative inquiry and the theoretical framework of the current study. The details of recent research and theories are illustrated in Table 2.2, with the highlighted problems being addressed in this study. The calls for research cited above emphasise gaps in the literature which this study aims to close. This study takes action to the calls effectively in its empirical investigation about the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation and in its aim to elaborate on the understanding of these experiences formed in a geographically dispersed environment through sensitivity to innovation theory.

2.10 Conclusion The literature review chapter concludes about how the literature review reveals a gap in the literature and the importance of filling that gap from theoretical and practical points of view. Finally, each of the three fields, OL, KM, and innovation has an element of firm literature. In the case of OL and KM, it has strong academic roots, but still needs conceptual clarity. In the case of innovation, most of the literature is set and there is requirement to involve in more theory development in order to legitimize the field in the academic community. This literature review builds on previous research that opened up the possibility for dialogue that allows the author to develop this integrative model. A final conclusion from this literature review is that more needs to be investigated in studying the factors that enable OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members need to be more specific about the characteristics of the knowledge that enhances creativity and the conditions under which learning leads to practical implementation of new practices. This chapter claims that the convergence of themes across OL, KM, and innovation provides a new view for more integrated organisational research into OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members. A broad illustration of the literature is presented to show the call for a research study of this nature. The combination of themes across the literature is presented as occurring in three main discourses. OL, KM, and innovation is presented as interrelated and an integrated device that promises new perspectives in the fields.

64

2 Literature Review

Table 2.2 Calls for research Reference

Focus of research

Call for research

McElroy (2003)

New KM: complexity, learning and sustainable innovation

On cross-disciplinary approaches to understanding the nature of organisational knowledge, how it is generated and diffused, and the development of knowledge

Van Eijnatten (2004)

Suggestions for a complexity To validate the new lens of framework to inform a learning complexity and to specify the organisation circumstances in which it can add value to learning organisations

Kennedy (2006)

Developing a holistic perspective on learning and knowledge in a public sector organisation with a complexity perspective

What is an organisation that it may learn? What is the relationship between emergent organisation and formal organisation and how does this relationship impact the organisational alignment with the environment?

Brachos et al. (2007)

An investigation into knowledge-sharing mechanisms by empirically testing the role that context plays in the transfer of actionable knowledge, and, in turn, for innovation

In knowledge-sharing theory to define and identify an integrated model concerning the contextual factors that enable the knowledge-sharing process

Zheng, Zhang, Wu and Du (2011)

To statistically test theoretical concepts of dynamic capabilities from the knowledge-based perspective and investigate the mechanisms of dynamic capabilities on innovation performance in networked environments

More examination and verification for the construct of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities

Donate and Guadamillas (2011)

Provides new empirical evidence in high-rate innovation industries on the relationships between KM, organisational elements, such as culture, leadership in HR practices and innovation in a large sample of firms

To include other industries and a more diverse sample of firms

(continued)

2.10 Conclusion

65

Table 2.2 (continued) Reference

Focus of research

Call for research

Kanchana et al. (2011)

This study examined learning, knowledge management and innovation using quantitative methodology focusing on the importance of leadership influence

Need to take into account of phenomena that surround individual, group and organisation

Chen et al. (2012)

To propose a KM fit model within which KM strategy, IT strategy and HRM strategy are co-aligned. And then empirically test the model with empirical data collected from companies in Taiwan

Multi-cultural comparisons research (using the model) to test its stability in the case of different countries

Barbaroux (2012)

A single case which identified the capabilities supporting the development of collaborative innovation within knowledge-intensive environments

To investigate the relationship between innovation and organisational learning

Buchel et al. (2013)

This study investigates the knowledge and trust linkages between new product development (NPD) teams and their organisational stakeholders, using a mixed methods design that combines network analysis, surveys and qualitative interviews and that focuses on NPD teams in chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing

To replicate the findings using larger samples of teams involving diverse innovation tasks

Moustaghfir and Schiuma (2013)

This study is based on a cross-sectional survey design looked at the relationship between OL and competitive advantage with the effect of KM and innovation

Future research to emphasise the importance of adopting multi-disciplinary approaches to remove the complexities of how organisations convert knowledge resources to a long–lasting competitive advantage

This chapter develops a line of argument in which more comprehensive integrated point of views of OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in a private educational organisation are put forward. It is critical for a better understanding of OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members, and it is equally crucial to better recognise the organisational factors, characteristics and mechanisms in shaping the OL, KM, and innovation practices.

66

2 Literature Review

Across the literature in OL, KM and innovation, growing attention has been paid to the relationship between the individual and the organisation in the development of knowledge, as well as to the role of individuals and team members in terms of cognition, sharing and institutionalization. Innovation theory is shown here to provide fresh perspectives on organisations and throws some light on the questions that are central to the converging themes across the literature reviewed. This chapter linked the key themes at the point of convergence of OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed individuals and team members and the opportunity for novel research of the type provided by this study is claimed. This chapter provides a summary of the theoretical and practical context in which this research is devised. It demonstrates the integration of OL, KM, and innovation processes in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in an educational organisation. The discussion underlines the ways in which the three themes provide a new viewpoint to recognise the value of the ways in which organisational members learn, manage knowledge, and execute innovation. It provides a comprehensive and integral understanding of the contribution this learning makes to the management of knowledge and execution of new ideas in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. The literature supports an exploration of what are the factors that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation as more needs to be understood in the field. Therefore, authors and theorists call for research specifically for this type of study. The following chapter describes the theory and the author’s experience in the actual process of data collection with the grounded theory methodology.

Chapter 3

Theory and Methodology

Abstract This chapter describes the theory and the methodology. The calls for research and analysis invite the author to explore areas that are not thoroughly explored is presented in reinforcing the necessity for performing this research project.

3.1 Introduction This chapter discusses the author’s experience in developing the research approach with the grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2006; Dick, 2005; Locke, 2001; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The grounded theory research process as illustrated in Fig. 3.1 has appealing characteristics to meet the requirements of an inductive theory-building study. Glaser and Strauss (1967) observed that most studies generating substantive theory will ultimately generate and improve formal theory. The three sensitizing concepts—OL, KM, and innovation theory framework developed in Chap. 2 are treated as variables through the specifications of grounded theory procedures (Blaikie, 2000). This chapter structures the development of the research approach describing the significance of a grounded approach to the study. no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism. (Kuhn, 1962, pp. 16–17)

This chapter presents the theoretical orientation for the development of methodology in this study. It emphasises the key role the theoretical frame plays in the selection of methodology and methods in guiding this research. In this book learning, knowledge and innovation are presented as an integrated content as well as research outcome. This research is designed to bring about complete understandings of learning, knowledge and innovation in a geographically dispersed educational organisation. This leads to contribute to fuller point of views when compared to achieving results based on their separate investigation. The author’s understandings of knowledge development and knowledge inform the research question and the research approach. McElroy’s (2002) ‘The new knowledge management’ prompted me to thoroughly understand ‘What is knowledge?’ © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0_3

67

68

3 Theory and Methodology

Fig. 3.1 Grounded theory research process

(Zagzebski, 1999) and encouraged me to further investigate the creation, development, transmission and implementation of knowledge, learning and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. The theory that emerges from the literatures and underpins the research question also has impact on the research approach. Development of the research question emerging from literatures is presented in the following chapter. Literature review in Chap. 2 discussed the integrating aspects of learning, knowledge and innovation as intertwined in the themes. This study aligns the research approach with the themes. This is critical to this study in supporting the theoretical importance of social relationship and networks, knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities and the role of social cognitive schema in individual and collective in a geographically dispersed working environment that facilitates emergent learning, KM and innovation.

3.1 Introduction

69

This chapter constructs a justification for the selection of methodology. It emphasises the alignment of theoretical discussion in the fields of OL, KM and innovation with epistemological, theoretical and methodological assumptions in research approach.

3.2 Developing a Research Approach Increasing attention is paid in the management studies and information systems studies to the formation and assertions of different theories, perspectives, and paradigms. The influence of developing wide-ranging point of views in science and organisation revealed in the literatures offered opportunity for more complete research and fresh perspectives into organisational experience. These new perceptions indicate interpretive approach and flexible research designs. However, they also challenge rigorous research perspectives and mandate cautious consideration to process to confirm the validity of research results. The challenge and resulting demand are established in Lincoln and Guba (1985), and Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) qualitative research literatures. Recently, Wheatley (2006) suggested several implications of new science theories that can be useful in understanding and improving how organisations are designed, perceived, and function. This development influences the investigation of emergent experiences as a right way to explore and make sense of characteristics and mechanisms of human societies which are enormously complex systems. The theory directed the methodological approach in this research. Crotty’s (1998, p. 4) four elements model was used in this research. Crotty’s (1998) model presents the relationship between epistemology, theory, methodology and methods. Therefore, this model is adopted to support development of a research approach in line with this book content. This chapter presents epistemology, theory and the methodology. The following chapter illustrates the methods in detail. The following sections present the epistemological base of the research Innovation is presented as an important informing theory. Reference is made to theoretical discussion in the literature. Common themes in developing innovation theories of interaction, self-organisation, novelty, and diversity support the methodology in this study.

3.2.1 Epistemology Epistemology is concerned with knowledge, in particular, its nature and forms, how it can be acquired, how it can be communicated and how we know that we know (Miller & Brewer, 2003, p. 94). The epistemological base of this study emerges from the literature and confirms the author’s personal understanding of the characteristics of knowledge. Chapter 2 describes different perspectives on knowledge. In this study,

70

3 Theory and Methodology

knowledge does not agree with the question ‘is knowledge hard, universal and capable of being transmitted in tangible form … based on experience and insight of a unique and essentially personal nature?’ (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, cited in Cohen & Manion, 1994, p. 6). The epistemology that underpins this research is focused on the view that knowledge in individuals, team members, and organisations are generated through social interaction and accords with Crotty (1998) as: all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context. (p. 42)

3.2.2 Theory This study looks to several authors and interrelating theories in developing consensus between the intersecting themes and methodological approach. The methodological approach is sensitive to innovation theory (Johannessen, 2014), constructivism (Schwandt, 2003), sense-making (Weick, 1995), and knowledge as situated and active in people (Kennedy, 2006). This research supports a fresh point of view on the lived experience of organisational members in line with the discussion and influence of theory on the approach.

3.2.2.1

Innovation

Positivist methodologies have been successfully applied in the natural sciences. The post positivist view describes the realist and constructivist perspectives but is also implicitly an assessment of the nature of reality and studies the human experiences. Wheatley (2006) provides a new way to look at human experiences and leaderships in organisations through the analogy of quantum physics presenting whole system relationships, chaos theory and concept of self-organising behaviour. Studies of human experiences primarily focus on social, consciousness and context (Caulley, 1994). The new sciences call for a fresh perspective. Perceptions from the new sciences support a process which identifies natural growth, facilitation of process, people form relationships, leadership as a behaviour, information is nourishment and vital to all to do their best work and for the organisation to be resilient, and wholism as intensely impacting on our understandings of research and reflection. Innovation theory focuses on new ideas, and new practices in everyday work experiences (Rogers, 1995). This is possible through an enquiry valuing participants’ perspectives as an iterative process. A need for developing new theory that is grounded in the participants’ perspectives is apparent. The comparison of facilitation of process, self-organising behaviour, non-linear dynamics, and people developing greater self-knowledge in new information and relationships to the existing innovation theories lead to informing the final stages of theory development and serves as a means of reinforcing the findings of this study. The flexibility of this research

3.2 Developing a Research Approach

71

design facilitates freedom. It allows author to find consistency in the phenomena which emerge in the research findings.

3.2.2.2

Constructivism and Constructionism

The knowledge management paradigm is established upon a view of people involved in developing knowledge as a potentially dominating force, tied to a cognitive process of human being and is influenced by Polanyi’s (1958) representation of knowledge as tacit embedded in individuals. Thus, this study agrees on Polanyi’s (1958) representation of knowledge and demonstrates constructivist epistemological approach. Constructivism, according to Crotty (1998) is ‘an individualist understanding of the constructionist position’ (p. 58) maintaining focus on the sense-making activity of individual minds. This study focused on the need to explore about what is happening in the chosen PEI? What is occurring in the chosen geographically dispersed educational organisation? The research needed more understanding into areas that are unknown to the author and provides freedom to explore. Grounded theory approach is most relevant methodology as it lacks control over discipline under investigation and requires holistic approach. Grounded theory approach enlightens reality of the situation and allows the author to focus on a theory that explains a process in a specific context or setting (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Social constructionism, which is also referred to as interpretivism, is a research philosophy that views the social world as being socially constructed (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Bryman and Bell (2007), and Saunders et al. (2009) hold similar views and explain that constructionism is an ontological position which asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors and are ‘socially constructed’ giving meaning from people. However, the key investigation is in reducing the variance in a diversity of meanings to concur the purpose of interest with its different interpretative perspective (Malhotra, 2001). Easterby-Smith, Lyles and Tsang (2008) state that social constructionism focused on the ways that people make sense of the world especially work through the sharing of experiences with others. A constructionist focus is ‘not believing in the existence of objective truth out there’ for us to discover, but meaning coming from our interaction with reality (Crotty, 1998). This meaning making between participants and the author engaging in the construction of perspectives goes through a process of sense making (Weick, 1995). This collective meaning making and collective learning is a significant topic in the KM literatures and has some resonance with the work of Kennedy (2006, 2010) in her theory of knowledge as an activity of interdependent people.

72

3 Theory and Methodology

3.3 Methodology According to Clough and Nutbrown (2002): A characteristic purpose of a methodology is to show not how such and such appeared to be the best method available for the given purposes of the study, but how and why this way of doing it was unavoidable – was required by – the context and purpose of this particular enquiry. (p. 17, italics in original)

This section develops a rationale for the selection of the methodology. Saunders et al. (2009) explain that the research philosophy is influenced by the way one thinks about the development of knowledge because this will affect the way one goes about the research itself. This study focussed on behaviours, relationships and therefore the choice of methodology needed to be qualitative approach (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 183). Creswell (2006) defines qualitative research as an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. Furthermore, the theory that emerges from the literatures and the research question prompted the need for a qualitative methodology. The choice of methodology lead the author to construct fresh perspectives through detailed views of informants; holistic illustration; analyse discussions using participants’ words; and, conduct the study in a real setting. Thus, using a qualitative methodology allowed the author to study the phenomenon of learning, knowledge and innovation experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. Strauss and Corbin (1998) state that ‘if someone wanted to know what it was like to be a participant in a drug study […], then he or she might sensibly engage in a grounded theory project’ (p. 40). Their quote above asserts the principle of when it is best to use grounded theory methodology for a research study.

3.3.1 Grounded Theory The grounded theory in this study is based upon text mining and text analytics with the authors’ interpretation and description of phenomena based on the members’ subjective descriptions and interpretations of their experiences (Locke, 2001). This ‘interpretation’ strives to provide contextual relevance (Silvermann, 2000). In an orthodox grounded theory study, the literature comparison occurs after the development of the substantive theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The discussions of the findings consistently make references to extant literature, previous research to express theoretical consensus in order to achieve theoretical validity. This is done in accordance to Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Locke (2001) in order to organise the categories so that they result in a conceptual ‘whole’ and so that a theoretical framework emerges. The extant literature and a variety of former conceptual fundamentals are compared in order to elucidate the relationships between the categories and their

3.3 Methodology

73

properties. The author seeks to build substantive theory as well as providing input into developing theories of innovation so that it makes sense of both the data from the study and the data from the literature. This basis for a grounded theory, enthused several grounded theorists. Led by Bryant (2002), Clarke (2005), Charmaz (2006), and Kennedy (2006, 2010), new approaches to grounded theory analysis have emerged that reflect epistemological, theoretical, and methodological developments over the past decade. The author in this research project following their direction adhered to the methodological approach executed by Kennedy (2006, 2010) and understood the procedures on the ways the substantive theory was built. In this study, the author has identified substantive theories, which are written in memos, journals for reflection for her comparisons of substantive area. The author performed pilot tests that formal categories are relevant to data and they were found to be fit and work. In this present study, the author investigates the relationship between innovation theories in relation to factors influencing learning, organisational knowledge and innovation. Following Kennedy (2006, 2010) the author presents research by using formal theories, and concepts as sensitising devices in building theory. The author in this study inspired by Kennedy’s (2006) methodological approach follows similar methodological approach which takes a theory from one field and uses it to sensitise understanding of three fields. This research project takes one organisation functioning in a geographically dispersed environment. This study thoroughly analyses the properties and dimensions of the data against the theory. In this way, both theory of the participants’ experiences and the substantive theory co-emerge. Following Kennedy (2006, 2010) who slightly modified Vaughan’s (1992) methodological approach in her study, in this research project the author takes ‘intuitive practice—using theories about the world to organise and understand it—and make the practice overt so we can better direct our analysis of social situations’ (p. 196). Strauss and Corbin’s (1998b, p. 176) work supports Vaughan’s interpretation of grounded theory methodology. Kennedy (2006, 2010) following Vaughan’s (1992) approach lead to successful empirical investigation presenting clearer perceptions into the nature of the experience. Similarly, the author in this study understands to fit in the methodological approach following Kennedy (2006, 2010) in her empirical exploration. Hunter, Hari, Egbu and Kelly (2005), while recognizing its sophistication, state that grounded theory is very diverse in its application and can be adapted and applied to go well with the disposition of the research problem and the particular approach of the investigator. On a comparable note, Heath and Cowley (2004) suggest that a qualitative analysis is a cognitive process and that each individual has a different cognitive style; this, in turn, philosophically affects how the research is accomplished. This study revealed an emergent theory about OL, KM and innovation. The characteristics and mechanisms related to the innovation theory then provided a base for further analysis. The chapter closes with an appraisal of the methodological approach. Adopting grounded theory methods for data collection and data analysis affords this study the potential to contribute to the body of knowledge about OL, KM and

74

3 Theory and Methodology

innovation. This approach offers insight, enhances understanding, and provides a meaningful guide to action (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The iterative analysis process (the interaction between the data and concepts) could provide a way to improve the concepts and theories. Miles and Huberman (1994) differentiate three processes in the analysis. Data reduction starts at the initial research phase, and data display summarises the meaning and the conclusion by comparing and searching for patterns. Miles and Huberman (1994) also spent considerable amount discussing the inductive and deductive approach in interview research design. According to them, iterative analyses combine both. Wolcott (1994) states that after one has inductively identified a theme, one goes on to try verifying or confirming the finding (deductive), which once again provides an inductive iteration (Howe & Eisenhart, 1990). Corbin and Strauss (2008) are more interested in validation criteria and a systematic approach, whereas Miles (1979) believes it is legitimate and useful to start with conceptual analytical categories that are inductive. This explains that there is more potential in the data collected for the study. An inductive approach to this study, at the initial phase of focus group discussion, was proposed by asking, ‘Do you think working with colleagues to plan student learning is an effective way of improving lecturers’ practice?’ The author sought to explore the content in-depth with respondents who were interviewed. The methodological approach in this study takes the interview excerpts and systematically analyses the properties and significance of the data against the theory. The study applies text analytic methods adopting grounded theory methodology (Fig. 3.1) to the interview excerpts. Techiques used in text analytics are information extraction, categorization, clustering, visualization and summarization. In this way, both the participants’ experience and the theory develop together. An openminded attitude towards the empirical data is one of the main strengths of grounded theory, and this is also incorporated in this study. The framework emerged from grounded data. Thus, the analysis advanced in conjunction with OL, KM and innovation theory. An important attention in this study aligns with the grounded theory methodology applied by Charmaz (2000), which supports ‘the development of qualitative traditions through the study of experience from the standpoint of those who live it’ (p. 522). The chosen organisation provided an environment in which deep research took place and was relevant to the research question, and the study sample generated rich information on the phenomena studied (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 34). This study settled on the OL, KM and innovation theory. The discussions were established on innovation concept informing the characteristics and mechanisms of social, architectural and cultural innovation facilitating OL, KM and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed educational environment. More than providing a sensitising device, the characteristics and mechanisms of the factors provided definitions of the properties and dimensions of the categories, as well as a base for the theoretical sampling of data. Moreover, it provided for the development of the model within this research context. Grounded theory assumes ‘that all of the concepts pertaining to a given phenomenon have not yet been identified, at least not in this population and place.

3.3 Methodology

75

Or, if so, the relationships between the concepts are poorly understood or conceptually undeveloped’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 40). This study’s sensemaking actions are used as an alternate perspective. The data analysis consistently made references to previous studies and extant literature to express theoretical convergence. The grounded theory approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998) should be understood as a proclamation not to renege from the purely inductive way of analysing data, and they have taken important steps away from a pure inductivist position. Therefore, the author has adopted this approach to analyse data and discuss the findings in parallel with references to the literature to agree on theoretical validity and continue this move away from pure inductivism. This approach is not to be viewed as a rejection of an empirically based inductive analysis, as it is performed in the coding processes of grounded theory. Inductive theory building is used to create theoretical constructs and hypotheses. Blaikie (2000) has argued that research which is concerned with theory generation might require sensitizing concepts but no hypotheses. Therefore, themes drawn from this analysis are not used for testing, as the study’s purpose is to ‘build theory’ (Corley & Gioia, 2011, p. 16). Thus, the integrated model (see Fig. 4.1) constructed from the findings will be discussed in the following findings Chap. 4. The author progressed to writing the findings in order to use them in the analysis of the limitations of innovation theory and to understand the experiences being explored in the PEI context. The deliberation on the author’s responsibility in the evaluation, analysis, construction of the book, and focus on validity and authenticity is also important.

3.3.2 Ethical Considerations Miller and Boulton (2007) say that informed consent is a concept that attempts to capture and convey what is regarded as the appropriate relationship between author and research participant. The consent forms were approved by the ethics committee (HREC 12–31) from University of Canberra prior to data collection. The participant and consent form included the aim of the study, benefits, risks, participant involvement, description, experience, options, rights and responsibilities, data confidentiality, anonymity, data storage, unlawful conduct, financial issues and results. Appendix C includes the template for participant information and the consent form, as well as the recruitment invitation letter. The next task in achieving informed consent was to inform participants about the research in a way they could understand. To ensure confidentiality of data collection, a briefing was held to seek signatures for the ethics consent form. Upon receiving individual consent, participants acknowledged the participant information and consent forms, respectively. Then, permission to record the discussion and interview was sought, and all participants agreed to this. Participants were asked if they could be contacted for any future clarification, and thus their email and telephone contact details were confirmed.

76

3 Theory and Methodology

3.3.3 Limitations This study, whilst aiming to reflect the experiences of participants honestly, is limited by the nature of research itself. Limited organisational experience is investigated in this research project. This study does not propose to generalise due to its investigation of human experiences in a very limited sample. This study aims to better understand the experience of the few volunteer participants in an attempt to understand learning, knowledge and innovation in a geographically dispersed educational organisation. This study is bound to focus on the research question and disregard some views of experience from investigation. This study is credible which offers participants’ experience in the reality as they exist. It constrains itself in its use of the innovation theory. However, this study addressed this limitation through critical reflection on its use. In this study, the concepts of innovation were not used as a framework in discussion of findings until after emergent new theory was developed. The grounded theory was constructed based on a qualitative analysis. Only then it was compared to the social, architectural and cultural innovation to explore similarities and differences with the emergent findings. This way, the author was not biased and unnecessarily tied to the existing theory. This allowed the new theory to emerge from the participants’ discourses. The comparison to the existing innovation theories informed the final stages of theory development and served as a means of reinforcing the findings of this study. In this research the interviews were conducted to avoid leading questions and bias. Interview excerpts and NVivo node structures were studied carefully for context and content accuracy prior to analysis. As the conclusions drawn are grounded in the emergent data helped the author reduces the risk of bias. The methodology is one which may be challenged by authors and the study applies strategies for assessing credibility and trustworthiness to this research project.

3.3.4 Identifying and Avoiding Bias by Evaluating the Research Process Sturman (1999: 110) stated, “…biases should be acknowledged” for achieving credibility in qualitative research. The author has demonstrated rigour, connected with openness, relevance to practice and agreement of the methodological approach. The goal of the grounded theory methodology applied in this study has theory development as its aim. The methodology employed was flexible and reflected the experiences of the participants. This flexibility resulted in the opportunity to carefully check data grounded in the research findings against the developing theory of innovation. Therefore, the author adopted Strauss and Corbin’s (1998, p. 269) evaluation criteria to convince herself of the competence and quality of the process.

3.3 Methodology

3.3.4.1

77

Participant Selection

The population for the research is drawn from a large PEI with its head office in Singapore. It operates across multiple sites within Singapore and overseas. Diverse cultures exist, with staff from different educational backgrounds, age groups, cultural backgrounds and roles providing breadth in organisational understanding, practices and values. While the participants were diverse in age, experience, background and gender as well as in occupational specialisation demographic data were not collected nor used in analysis as this exploration of individual and team members’ experience did not seek to categorise individual difference. The participants function within five different departments or schools of this organisation and volunteered to participate in the interviews.

3.3.4.2

Sample Selection

The original sample was selected on the basis of the author’s sensitivity to the case. In selecting the case, the author selected samples that would provide as much information as possible on the different items set out in the research question and how far the choice of case might affect the scope for developing theory inductively from the data. The author’s interest in accessing various points of view and perspectives allowed her to select the samples. The organisation was identified as one that focused on learning and on building knowledge, which generated rich information on the type of phenomena studied. Having free access to the organisation’s annual report—which eased the feasibility of cost, time, accessibility and sampling strategy compatible with the author’s work style (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 34)—allowed the author to enhance the interpretive power in this study by ensuring that the scope of the analysis was clearly specified.

3.3.4.3

Data Analysis, Text Mining and Text Analytics

The participants included a senior manager, lecturers and the senior managers or head of school from the School of Business, School of Technology and E-learning, School of Languages, School of Engineering and School of Life Sciences. These participants participated in the multifaceted group discussion, semi-structured interview, and focus group interview. The author interpreted and involved in the clustering of codes based on participants’ discourses. Data saturation was reached during the five phases of the study (see Table 4.1). The final stage included all the participants in order to address the credibility of data and analysis to substantiate the study’s findings. When analysing data the author may naturally look for data that confirms their hypotheses or confirms personal experience, overlooking data inconsistent with personal beliefs. Grounded theory is an iterative process, and this study combines several steps within phases. The research follows the strategies described by Denzin and Lincoln (2000) in its use of participants’ discourses for the author to interpret

78

3 Theory and Methodology

the data and for coding, comparative and analyses of data and in its elaboration of theory from grounded data. The categories that emerged through analysis will be described in Chaps. 5 and 6. The author recognised different themes aligned to the personal effects and the instrument of innovation. Chapter 5 provides participants’ descriptions and explanations of these experiences, events and achievements. Some central categories are briefly offered here to illustrate some of the points. Organisational structures and organisational characteristics, for example, emerged as a central category through participants describing events in which knowledge was developed locally and held near. Commitment was another important category, and incidents of staff interaction that involved collaborative culture and innovation were portrayed. The category selforganisation, too, was developed from discussions about group dynamic behaviour that were undirected and helped to improve the coherence of the group. The author also considered how the theoretical formulations guided some of the data collection. After the theoretical sample was carried out, the author also ensured to evaluate how representative those categories proved to be. For an example, once the clusters of themes were recognised to align with the innovation concepts, the descriptions provided by the model were used for further sampling of data. New data was not required, as the sampling developed in the previously collected participants’ descriptions was considered adequate. The theory’s inducement to explore more examples fostered some insight to the theory as it developed within this context. As theoretical sampling developed, the model was confirmed to be mostly descriptive of the experiences of the participants. However, there were disagreements between the findings and the theory. The author also discussed the hypotheses pertaining to relations among categories and ensured to evaluate on what grounds they were formulated and tested. As categories developed, there were important connections between them (this is developed in Chaps. 5 and 6). The connections were created and investigated through the search for data. Sampling was performed on the data for evaluation and confirmation or to discern any differences. In this research, the investigation and development of concepts oriented towards extant theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The theory remained grounded in the data but added sensitivity to the data, and these data reciprocally contributed to the developing theory. The author also looked for instances when hypotheses did not hold up against what was actually seen. The hypotheses that emerged from the connections between categories and from innovation were helpful in explaining many aspects of the data, but there were some areas in which the theory did not effectively support analyses of participants’ experiences. One notable example is in the category valuing the people. Other minor themes that appeared in participants’ discourse were not adequately represented by the theory; these were used to highlight gaps in the innovation theory application to this setting and to contribute to its development. Modifications to the hypotheses are reflected in the contributions to innovation theory and in its application to this organisation. The theory is a developing one and grounded as it is in this data, it accommodated some important variations.

3.3 Methodology

79

The author also convinced herself to Strauss and Corbin’s (1998, p. 269) criterion “How and why was the core category selected? Was the selection sudden or gradual, difficult or easy? On what grounds were the final analytic decisions made? How did extensive ‘explanatory power’ in relation to the phenomena under study and “relevance” figure in the decisions?” The process involving the coding data and the emergence of concepts was daunting in the initial stages, but as the process progressed, it became a resourceful and satisfying process that taught me a great deal about rigorous research. Coding and categorizing in the grounded theory approach demand a chain of analysis and time and requires the relating of findings to other theories. This experience of coding/categorizing gave the author sensitivity to other theories, as the process of coding and considering relationships between codes makes it easier to think theoretically about other theories (Glaser, 1978). The loose clusters were developed. This clustering was important to the author because it provided access to participants’ understanding and provided insight into the codes that participants used to group the clusters. These clusters formed the foundation for core category development. They were further described and analysed based on the innovation theory, as they revealed the models to which the author was already sensitive. The model was also confirmed by the participants. The loose group took less than an hour for participants, and the collection of codes into clusters by participants was reasonably fast too. The recognition of the collection’s resonance with innovation took some weeks for the author to grasp, and confirmation of the model as a categorizing tool took some weeks longer. However, the actual understanding of the alignment of the categories and the model was sudden. The author initially thought of rejecting the model and looking for alternative readings and emergent themes. Finally, the study shifted to look at constructing the theory in a new setting. Therefore, the analysis was developed through iterative analysis of the data and theory, resulting in more insight into the data and contributions to the theory.

3.3.5 Credibility and Trustworthiness to Research Investigation This study has addressed four criteria that may be addressed by qualitative authors who desire to present a convincing case that a work is academically sound. The author has applied generic strategies to address Guba’s (1981) four criteria for trustworthiness to this research investigation (Table 3.1). In conventional inquiry, internal validity refers to the extent to which the findings accurately describe reality. Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that ‘the determination of such isomorphism is in principle impossible’ (p. 294), because one would have to know the ‘precise nature of that reality’ (p. 295) and, if one knew this already, there would be no need to test it. The naturalistic author assumes the presence of multiple realities and attempts to represent these multiple realities adequately. Credibility

Guba’s (1981) definition

Truth value asks whether the author has established confidence in the truth of the findings for the subjects or informants and the context in which the study was undertaken (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

Quality Approach

Credibility

The author is confident with the truth of the findings based on the research design, informants and context

What do the criteria mean for the research? (i) Adoption of appropriate research methods (ii) Development of early familiarity with the culture of participating organisations (iii) Voluntary participants and sample selection (iv) Iterative and coherent questioning in data collection dialogues (v) Debriefing sessions between author and supervisor (vi) Peer review and seminars of research progress (vii) Thick description of event under study and investigation (viii) Examination of prior research study to support and structure findings

Feasible and realistic requirements made by the author

Table 3.1 Generic strategies to address Guba’s (1981) four criteria for trustworthiness in this study

(continued)

(i) An examination of previous research findings is devised to assess the degree to which the project’s results are congruent with those of past studies. Silverman (2011) considers that the ability of the author to relate his or her findings to an existing body of knowledge is a key criterion for evaluating works of qualitative inquiry. In this respect, reports of previous studies staged in the same or a similar organisation and addressing comparable issues are invaluable sources (see Appendix A) (ii) Debriefing sessions between the author and her supervisor through email, discussion, Skype meetings and face-to-face discussion in Singapore have widened the vision of the investigator, as others bring to bear their experiences and perceptions. A debriefing session strategy allowed the author to establish trustworthiness (iii) The Audit Trail in Table 3.1 illustrates the data-oriented approach, showing how data was gathered and processed collected from the participants during the course of study (iv) Field notes and use of a journal for reflective commentary. Lofland and Lofland (1984) recommend jotting down notes that will serve as a memory aid when full field notes are constructed (v) Member checks of data collected are conducted and interpretations/theories are formed as respondents are asked to corroborate findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, pp. 313–316)

How does this research address them?

80 3 Theory and Methodology

Guba’s (1981) definition

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to other contexts and settings or with other groups; it is the ability to generalise from the findings to larger populations (Guba, 1981) Guba (1981) presented the second perspective on applicability in qualitative research by referring to fittingness, or transferability, as the criterion against which applicability of qualitative data is assessed

Consistency

Quality Approach

Transferability

Dependability

Table 3.1 (continued)

Whether the findings would be consistent if the inquiry were replicated with the same subjects or in a similar context Guba’s (1981) concept of dependability implies trackable variability, that is, variability that can be ascribed to identify sources

This research meets this criterion, as the findings can fit into contexts outside the study situation, which are determined by the degree of similarity or goodness of fit between the two contexts

What do the criteria mean for the research?

(i) This study made use of interconnecting methods (ii) An exhaustive methodological description allows the study to be repeated

A sensitizing literature survey established the context of this study. Sensitizing concepts are used simply to lay the foundation for the analysis of research data (Blumer, 1954). Sensitizing concepts provide starting points to develop analysis in order to produce a grounded theory (Bowen, 2006). Sensitizing concepts provide the author with a sense of how the analysed data might fit within conceptual categories. Blaikie (2000) has argued that research which is concerned with theory generation might require sensitizing concepts, but not hypotheses. A detailed description of events in question will allow comparisons to be made in the future Merriam (1998) writes that external validity ‘is concerned with the extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to other situations’ (p. 207). This study will be subject to what Eisner (1998) called retrospective generalizability, which is developed by ‘formulating an idea that allows us to see our past experience in a new light’ (p. 205)

Feasible and realistic requirements made by the author

(continued)

The ways in which this study meets the requirements for dependability are available in this chapter’s discussion of methods and data analysis

Lincoln and Guba (1985) noted that transferability is the responsibility of the person wanting to transfer the findings to another situation or population than that of the author of the original study. Thus, this study presents sufficient descriptive data to allow comparison, as the author has addressed the problem of applicability This research should help future authors examine the association that may exist between the milieus of educational improvement, various responses—as depicted in story and based on experience and narrative—of individuals to this background of change, and the perceptions these participants have of the influences of others and the environment on their professional practice

How does this research address them?

3.3 Methodology 81

Guba’s (1981) definition

Neutrality

Quality Approach

Conformability

Table 3.1 (continued)

Neutrality refers to the degree to which the findings are a function solely of the informants and conditions of the research panel, not of other biases, motivations and perspectives (Guba, 1981)

What do the criteria mean for the research? (i) The use of diagrams demonstrates data and the theory audit trail in this study (ii) Admission of the author’s beliefs and assumptions are presented (iii) Recognition of limitations in the study’s methods and their possible consequences are discussed (iv) An exhaustive methodological description allows the integrity of research results to be examined

Feasible and realistic requirements made by the author

The author tried to increase the worth of the findings by decreasing the distance between the author and informants and by prolonged contact through focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews and a focus group interview

How does this research address them?

82 3 Theory and Methodology

3.3 Methodology

83

becomes the test for this and depends less on sample size than on the richness of the information gathered and on the analytical abilities of the author (Patton, 1990). Table 3.1 uses Guba’s (1981) model to assess the credibility, trustworthiness and rigour of this research. The inclusion of a clear definition of the criteria used to assess the research and a description of how these qualitative criteria relate to criteria will help reviewers assess the value of this study. This study adheres to these strategies to deliver credible research results. Chapter 4 discusses how this study meets the requirements for credibility.

3.3.6 Model and Metaphors Practitioners could gain effectiveness in dealing with external complexity if they would espouse the modelling task as a disciplined reflection and communication geared towards the elaboration of theories (Schwaninger & Groesser, 2008). They analysed the question: ‘Can formal computer modelling be an effective approach to theory-building, and how?’ Schwaninger (2005) took System Dynamics as an exemplary methodology which is colloquially referred to as theory building. Modelling, according to the constructivist position, is the construction of a subjective reality. The modeller is an observer who, by the act of observing or modelling, creates a new world (Von Foerster, 1984). The model becomes a strong device for supporting the process of theory building, in which the model is, or gradually becomes, part of the theory itself. Hence, in the end, theory building and model building are one, evolving in the form of a discourse in which different people are involved. In other words, what keeps the discourse going is usually not a completed model, but a model in its different stages by a author through the interpretation of participants’ discourses. Such model building has already been the object of deeper studies (Richardson & Andersen, 1995; Vennix, 1996). New science theory suggests that theory is about building model and developing metaphors. Mangham (1986, p. 21) state that, metaphor, far from being simply a poetic device or merely a matter of names and descriptive terms, is, above all else, a mode of thought. This understanding of metaphor ascertains its significance in grounding the meaningfulness that human beings attribute to the world. So, ‘the essence of metaphor is, understanding, and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another’ (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 5). Good modelling and theory building are fundamentally isomorphic in nature. In this study, the model and metaphors enable an explanation of the findings of the study and depicts the subjective reality.

84

3 Theory and Methodology

3.3.7 Methodology Development The research design focuses on accommodating emergent findings. It allows participants’ discourses to drive investigation and is flexible. Text mining process integrated NVivo and Rapidminer software tools for information retrieval, data mining, and computational linguistics characteristics to analyze patterns within the data and stored all information into knowledgebase repositories within the organization. Storage and retrieval of text accessible in organization’s documents, reports, discussion forums, emails and including keyword search was applied. Grouped and categorized the words, documents, using data mining clustering methods following initial coding, intermediate coding and advanced coding steps. Grouped and categorized paragraphs, documents, using data mining classification methods such as category identification and selecting core category and theoretical coding steps through constant comparative analysis and reaching teheoretical sensitivity to create a model. Identification and extraction of relevant facts and relationships from unstructured text found in reports, interview excerpts, and knowledge repositories were analysed to reach theoretical sensitivity. Concepts were extracted by grouping of words into semantically similar clusters. This flexibility however provides the author the opportunity for exploration of fresh experiences and perspectives.

3.4 Conclusion This chapter illustrates the evolution of the research methodology. It emphasises the role of innovation in the development of a grounded theory approach. Moreover, this study frames from a constructivist viewpoint, where any one individual’s interpretation is equally ‘true’ as any other person’s interpretation or construction, given that it works within a particular context (Dickerson & Zimmerman, 1996).This chapter frames theoretical discussion across the fields of OL, KM and innovation describing how it supports a grounded approach to the study. The concepts from grounded theory served as points of reference and guided the analysis of data, which allowed the author to develop the theory. The following chapter introduces the concepts and categories revealed in analysis. Methods are described in the following chapter and also illustrate the intensity of a research task that was committed to describing participants’ lived experiences and findings from the detailed data analysis are offered.

Chapter 4

Methods and Introduction to Findings

Abstract A full description of all ‘the contextual factors impinging on the inquiry’, as recommended by Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 290), is described in this chapter. This chapter describes the organisation taking part in the study and where is it based, the type of people who contributed data, the number of participants involved in the fieldwork, the data collection methods that were employed, the number and length of the data collection sessions, and the time period over which the data was collected. Furthermore, this chapter describes the iterative process of collecting and analysing data. This is followed by details on the development of a research design that underpins the study. An introduction to the analysis of the factors influencing OL, KM, and innovation practices are established on innovation concepts which are presented in this chapter. The categorizations of findings from the participants’ sensemaking of terms and discussions are introduced. Furthermore, this chapter discusses how this study meets the requirements for credibility. This chapter lays out the concepts, categories and properties which are used in the development of a new theory of innovation. The integrated model constructed from the findings is discussed and this model integrating Social, Architectural and Cultural Innovation Factors, Characteristics and Mechanisms Facilitating OL, KM, and Innovation Experiences Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team is presented.

4.1 Introduction This chapter discusses and presents the research question. It describes the process of working all the way through the aim and objectives of the research, methods of inquiry, selection of population and study site. It describes the tools and techniques chosen for this study and rationalises their anthology. The methods are presented to provide for analysis of experiences of organisational members. The methods shown illustrate the ways in which organisational members make sense of their experience results in reflecting the reality. The truth is presented as it is constructed by the participants.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0_4

85

86

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

This chapter underpins the findings of this study. A brief introduction bringing together the ways in which the participants construct meaning around learning, knowledge, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment is presented. The data was analysed and categories initially without reference to the theory and later the theory was applied once the similarity of categories with extant literature was discovered. Innovation concepts and metaphors provided a foundation to reinforce the findings and establish a detailed analysis. Participants’ terms and phrases are used for grounding the findings and participants’ own meaning was used in the discussion. Alongside the participants’ discussions and experiences, the literature is reviewed. Later this chapter outlines the categorisation of themes alongside innovation theories. Discussions about the social, architectural and cultural innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in a geographically dispersed environment are presented. Later this chapter develops the findings established on innovation concepts introduced in this chapter in detail, illustrating the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Participants were involved in listening to presentations on findings and seeking their confirmation for agreement in determining the significance of the descriptions. This process is an important characteristic of this method and allows the author some insight into their understanding and sensemaking of the experiences being investigated. The emerging patterns of concepts, categories and properties are briefly identified. This chapter concludes with an introduction to the findings of the study, depicting the concepts, categories and related data sets with emergent theory.

4.2 Overview of Method The focus of this research and its epistemological underpinnings align it with a qualitative approach as discussed in chapter 3. Qualitative methods are useful in exploring understandings and for uncovering unique insights, thought processes and emotions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

4.2.1 Collective Learning Experience Perspectives are developed at a social level and shared within an organisational grouping by narrating and coherently analysing experiences (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995, p. 351). In effect, individuals and organisational groups engage in the construction of perspectives through a process of sensemaking (Weick, 1995). This study focused on exploring the collective learning experience rather than individual differences and the author constructs the theory based on the interpretation of participants’

4.2 Overview of Method

87

discourses. Research is bounded by the organisation itself, although the organisation’s context impinges on the learning, knowledge management and innovation experiences of participants. The audit trail in Table 4.1 illustrates the data-oriented approach and shows how the data was gathered and processed during the course of study. Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2005) explain that to ‘focus on sensemaking is to portray organizing as the experience of being thrown into an ongoing, unknowable, unpredictable streaming of experience in search of answers to the question, “what’s the story?”’ (p. 410). The chosen participants are from a PEI operating in a geographically dispersed environment. Several foreign universities have collaborative arrangements with this PEI to offer their degree and post-graduate programmes in Singapore. Seven individuals from the selected PEI participated, sharing their experiences of learning, KM and innovation practices in the organisation. The author interpreted the collected data to analyse and categorise the themes that emerged from the participants’ discourse. This research used a small sample that provided the study with depth and significance based on the initial and emergent research questions and that directed how the author conducted the study and constructed the analysis (Charmaz, 2006). Sensemaking (Weick, 1995) is trustworthy because the data emerges from participants’ experiences as defined by individuals. Grounded theory acts in this process as a way of analysing the phenomena that occur and arise out of sensemaking (Table 4.1 provides a summary of the methods). Strauss and Corbin (1990) specifically defined grounded theory as a way to uncover discoveries that emerge from data. Like sensemaking (Weick, 1995), these discoveries are driven by the context of the participants and the experiences they impart. Thomas, Clark and Gioia describe sensemaking as ‘the reciprocal interaction of information seeking, meaning ascription, and action’ (cited in Weick, 1995, p. 5). Locke (2001) suggests that grounded theory is useful in management research, claiming that the subjective experiences of authors are credible even in such traditional quantitative disciplines (Locke, 2001, p. 61). Therefore, sensemaking is relevant for this study, and a grounded theory approach is considered suitable for data analysis.

4.2.2 Qualitative Research This research project uses the natural setting as the source of data which is a private education organisation functioning in a geographically dispersed environment. This study explores the inner experiences of participants and areas not yet thoroughly researched. The author attempts to observe, describe and interpret situations as they are, keeping what Patton (1990) calls an ‘empathic neutrality’ (p. 55). Thus, a qualitative research as an inquiry process supports understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem.

Situation framing (Weick, 1995) 2 Focus group discussion July 2012 Published material review Document review

Seven members shared their experiences and provided examples relating to knowledge and learning experiences with reference to their geographically dispersed work environment

Findings techniques

Respondents’ contributions

Phase 1

The author presents and highlights developed emerging themes and categories through a questioning discussion with participants about emergent concepts Participants elaborated on their experience obtained through the categories

Category Development (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Weick, 1995) 2 Semi-structured interviews August 2012

Phase 2

Table 4.1 Five phases of data collection and analysis

Three main categories, seven cluster categories and eight conceptual clusters

Grouping codes and early categories(Strauss & Corbin, 1998) Building cluster categories from the information pattern August 2012 January 2013 September 2014

Phase 3

25 February 2013, authorises organisational members to take responsible confirmation

Category saturation and theoretical sampling (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) 21 Focus group interviews between September 2012 and February 2013

Phase 4

(continued)

Draft Chapters 3 and 4 report review by participants was done on 5 November 2012 and again in December 2014 An initial version of methodology and methods and introduction to findings chapters was confirmed on 25 March 2013. A final version was confirmed in December 2014 Author presented the emergent theoretical structure and the group confirmed coming to a mutually agreed upon symbolic meaning

Theoretical integration and grounding the theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) Member checking between November 2012 and March 2013 Finalised in October 2014

Phase 5

88 4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Author mission

The author records all interactions. An audio file is converted to text transcripts. Predetermined nodes are developed from the focus group discussion Information recognition A constant comparative analysis was done Discourse with participants

Phase 1

Table 4.1 (continued) Investigating each node separately, sub-categories were created using NVivo10. Themes and node categories allowed for better understanding Process of updating understanding Discourse with participants

Phase 2 Author identifies categories, hierarchical position, merging of categories and nodes, or splits them into further sub-categories Author developed definitions of categories Author created memos and a personal journal for reflection Finally, selected discussions are highlighted to test for phase 4 Discourse with the participants

Phase 3 Author explores patterns until no new categories emerge Presentation on findings to seek participants’ feedback on the findings on 5 October 2012 January 2013–February 2013, category saturation and theoretical sampling

Phase 4

Author grounds emergent theory through validation against text Author compares emergent theoretical framework to existing theoretical models Analytical generalization to generalise a set of findings to a broader theory Building theory

Phase 5

4.2 Overview of Method 89

90

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

This study follows the generic strategies to address Guba’s (1981) four criteria for trustworthiness (see Table 3.1) to deliver credible results. This chapter’s discussion of methods and data analysis presents and meets the conditions for credibility.

4.2.3 Population 4.2.3.1

Organisation

The population for the research is drawn from a large PEI with its head office in Singapore. It operates across multiple sites within Singapore and overseas. Diverse cultures exist, with staff from different educational backgrounds, age groups, cultural backgrounds and roles providing breadth in organisational understanding, practices and values. Training and teaching the staff and leaders in this organisation requires diverse responsibilities to discern the emergence of novel phenomena in OL, KM, and innovation and are essential to the emergence of themes through the research methodology. Different cultures exist among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation context, providing in-depth scope in organisational understanding, practices and values. Access to collective relationships and networks, organisational characteristics and structure and diversity in tacit and overt boundaries is essential to the emergence of novel and innovative phenomena and is critical to the emergence of themes through the research methodology.

4.2.3.2

Participants

Whilst there are no closely defined rules for sample size (Baum, 2000; Patton, 1990), sampling in qualitative research usually relies on small numbers, with the aim of studying them in depth and detail (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990). Seeking a richness of data about a particular phenomenon, the sample is derived purposefully rather than randomly (Ezzy, 2002). The issue of limitations to the research as a consequence of sample bias is countered by the use of a number of research strategies. One of these strategies included the use of different methods of collecting data (Tuckett & Stewart, 2004a, 2004b). The following section discusses the research methods and strategies employed in an effort to maintain rigor and to create quality qualitative research. The study focused on exploring collective learning experience rather than individual differences. This study drew volunteer participants from three study sites. These participants function within five different departments or schools of this organisation. As the same participants work at different sites, it is justified to use the members from this business process operation. Also, the different sites operate separately, and members travel across the sites. The participants included a senior manager, lecturers and the senior managers or head of school from the School of Business, School of Technology and

4.2 Overview of Method

91

E-learning, School of Languages, School of Engineering and School of Life Sciences. These participants participated in the multifaceted group discussion, semi-structured interview, and focus group interview. The author interpreted and involved in the clustering of codes based on participants’ discourses. The themes were presented to capture the group’s negotiated agreement on the validity of the findings. Data saturation was reached during the five phases of the study. The final collective learning included all the participants in order to address the credibility of data and analysis to substantiate the study’s findings. Similar studies such as Kennedy (2006) has adopted similar designs with similar research problems exploring complex issues and built theory on learning and knowledge in a public sector organisation with a complexity perspective. Table 2.2: Calls for Research cited emphasise gaps in the literature which this study aimed to close. Table 4.1: Five Phases of Data Collection and Analysis presents the statistical demonstration of data saturation. Data was collected from the single organization operating in multiple geographic locations and 25 different interviews including focus group interviews, focus group discussion, semi-structured interviews, report reviews were conducted over a period of 2.5 years. This process, number of iterative interviews conducted, and the time spent provides internal support for the value of the dataset and the analysis and reporting built on the dataset. The five phases in this study demonstrate statistically that the dataset collected had become saturated. Morse (1995) stated, “Saturation is the key to excellent qualitative work and saturation is reached when the researcher gathers data to the point of diminishing returns, when nothing new is being added” (2, 22). This approach also adds to the credibility of the research. Each interview creates enormous time commitments, such as establishing relationships of trust, transcribing, coding, aiming on getting the right amount of data can save time. Researcher also adopted more rigorous standards of qualitative research that would enhance the reputation of qualitative research and even make this type of research more appealing to quantitative researchers. Table 3.1 presented the generic strategies to address Guba’s (1981) four criteria for trustworthiness in this study. Patton (2002), further stated, “sample size adequacy, like all aspects of research, is subject to peer review, consensual validation, and judgment” (2002, p. 246). Future studies can examine multiple case studies and similar problems can also be scientifically examined.

4.3 Methods The author worked from her understanding of the theory, but did not aim to prove certain propositions. The literature that substantiates the selection of these methods is included in the following sections.

92

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

4.3.1 Focus Group Discussion The focus group discussion allowed the author to see a broad range of views on the research topic, where participants felt comfortable to express their views (Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011). Also, it allowed group interaction that produced data and insight (Morgan, 1998). Therefore, focus group discussions allowed the author to generate more insight and to then use semi-structured interviews to gather more specific themes. The focus group discussion was advantageous when the interactions among interviewees were similar and individuals were cooperative (Creswell, 2006). It facilitated group discussion and actively encouraged group members to interact with one another (Silverman, 2011). The group discussion allowed the author to obtain comments which were a useful source of analytic insight and provided clues to then focus data collection more tightly.

4.3.2 Semi-structured Interviews The interview subjects did not merely construct discussions, but constructed social words (Silverman, 2011). The ‘semi structured life-world interview’ allowed the author to obtain ‘descriptions of the life world of the interviewee’ (Kvale, 1996, pp. 5–6). By probing beyond participants’ answers, the author received multiple responses to gain further insights to the topics. This qualitative interview captured ‘the multitude of subjects’ views of a theme’ so that the author came to see a participant’s complex social world (Kvale, 1996, p. 7). The author developed themes and categories through questioning the emergent concepts and questions based on predetermined nodes that were probed for clarity in node categories with the participants. Participants then elaborated on their experience obtained through the categories. Notwithstanding the research complexity and close interaction with the problem under investigation, to get closer to the reality and attain objectivity, the author followed multiple measures, interviews, document reviews and member checks. Emergent patterns in experiences from the discussions of learning, KM activities and mechanisms and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed work environment led to outcome about the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation practices among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation and enlightened the development of facilitators of such learning, KM and innovation experiences.

4.3 Methods

93

4.3.3 Focus Group Interview The group produced qualitative data to ‘provide insights into the attitudes, perceptions, and opinions of participants’ (Patton, 1987, p. 19). The focus group interview was conducted with a small group of people on a specific topic. This was not a discussion, a problem-solving session or a decision-making group (Patton, 1987). Therefore, the theoretical coding allowed the author to validate trustworthiness of the data gathered when facilitating the focus group interview. This research process allowed the author to understand and interpret participants’ discourses and she clarified her interpretations with the participants and came to mutually agree upon symbolic meaning. The author identified categories, hierarchical positions, merged categories and nodes. She also developed the definitions of categories upon conducting the focus group interview.

4.3.4 Member Checking Member checking allowed the author to determine accuracy of the qualitative findings through taking two of the draft chapters, descriptions and themes to the participants in order to determine whether these individuals felt that they were accurate (Creswell, 2009). This qualitative method proved to be an important procedure for corroborating and verifying the findings and for assuring validity and the criterion of conformability (Schwandt, 2007). The participants collectively interpreted the information in the draft chapters and then these members were authorised to make responsible confirmations based on the interpreted meaning.

4.3.5 Memo Writing reflexive memos, the author established a truthful and methodologically comparable way to facilitate the grounded theory process. Memos kept the author embedded in the empirical reality of participants’ experiences, with believable, rich descriptions, which contributed to the trustworthiness of the qualitative research (Lofland & Lofland, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1984; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Memos were used to summarise the major findings and included useful comments and reflections on aspects of the author’s evaluation (Krueger, 2009).

94

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

4.3.6 Personal Journal A personal journal tracked what was actually carried out during the different stages of the study. Primary evidence was distinguished from secondary evidence, and description was distinguished from interpretation. Journal entries and memos were written by participants, and the interviews were analysed (Hansen, 1995). This journal provided a tool for constant critical reflection on the development of the research and the evolving findings. It also provided an important means for conveying the uncertainty that transpired in this research and a significant opportunity for expressing theoretical reflections.

4.3.7 Data Collection and Analysis Strauss and Corbin (1998) remarked that grounded theory methodology is designed to further the development of effective theory. In the process developed and tested by Strauss and Corbin (1990), data collection and analysis should progress side by side. They also emphasise that the methods described in their grounded theory process can be fluid and need not be applied rigidly. The following strategies of the grounded theory approach are adopted from Denzin and Lincoln (2000, p. 510). (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Simultaneous collection and analysis of data. A two-step data coding process. Comparative methods. Memo writing aimed at the construction of conceptual analyses. Sampling to refine the author’s emerging theoretical ideas. Integration of the theoretical framework.

In addition the following text analytics startegies adopted from Ittoo and van den Bosch (2016) and Khan and Vorley (2017). (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Sentiment Analysis Intent Analysis Contextual Semantic search Deep dive analysis

Grounded theory is an iterative process, and this study combines several steps within phases. The research follows the strategies described by Denzin and Lincoln (2000) in its use of participants’ discourses for the author to interpret the data and for coding, comparative and analyses of data and in its elaboration of theory from grounded data. A discussion of this approach and its rationalisation follow in the data collection and analysis section.

4.3 Methods

95

4.3.8 Data Collection Protocol Prior to the actual focus group discussion and the semi-structured interview protocol being revealed to participants, the focus group discussion process and questions were piloted with various heads of the school. The aim of this pilot run was to test the reliability of the group discussions and interview. The pilot included a brief introduction about the study and its purpose, and then the author defined terms such as training and performance. Some definitions (e.g. training and performance) included references to the literature to promote a common understanding among the participants. At this stage, participants’ constructions of meaning around the terms are significant to a discussion of the findings (and will be presented at the start of the findings chapters). However, a number of definitions emerging from the literature proved useful in providing a background against participants’ use of terms. In this way, the introduction provided a context within which participants were free to use their interpretations, but within a shared understanding. The group discussion is designed to allow the author to deduce theory from the selected PEI operating in a geographically dispersed environment.

4.3.9 On-Site Meeting and Evaluation Miller and Boulton (2007) say that informed consent is a concept that attempts to capture and convey what is regarded as the appropriate relationship between author and research participant. The consent forms were approved by the ethics committee (HREC 12-31) prior to data collection. The participant and consent form included the aim of the study, benefits, risks, participant involvement, description, experience, options, rights and responsibilities, data confidentiality, anonymity, data storage, unlawful conduct, financial issues and results. Participant information and the consent form, as well as the recruitment invitation letter were prepared. The next task in achieving informed consent was to inform participants about the research in a way they could understand. To ensure confidentiality of data collection, a briefing was held to seek signatures for the ethics consent form. Upon receiving individual consent, participants acknowledged the participant information and consent forms, respectively. Then, permission to record the discussion and interview was sought, and all participants agreed to this. Participants were asked if they could be contacted for any future clarification, and thus their email and telephone contact details were confirmed.

96

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

4.3.10 Data Substantiation Focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews, document reviews, focus group interviews and member checking interviews were held with participants during the study period (July 2012 to October 2012). Two draft chapters were confirmed by participants on 5 November 2012 and participants were informed about this study’s research purpose and process. The draft chapters were presented again during March 2013 and finally in December 2014 for the participants’ agreement. The data collected were part of the study on the organisation and management structure of the PEI. The study was conducted in five phases, and the subsequent sections describe the processes.

4.3.10.1

Phase 1: Situation Framing

The focus group discussion allowed the author to gain a broad range of views on the research topic, as participants felt comfortable expressing their views (Hennink et al., 2011). This discussion allowed the author to collate data to generate more insight. The process was flexible, as interviewees were able to understand the purpose, issues and events. However, the discussion exceeded the scheduled time of no more than one hour. During the focus group discussion, notes were not taken, but observations were made about body language and observed group interaction. This enabled the author to recollect expressions that conveyed meaning pertinent to interviewees’ intended meaning, which were recorded in a journal. Care was taken when probing for further information so as not to introduce or place greater emphasis on a subject than what was intended by participants in order to avoid ‘overly directing the interviewees’ talk’ (Rapley, 2004, p. 20). The author did not share any personal experiences, choosing instead to listen and ask probing questions. The group of participants was very enthusiastic in sharing their experience and practices.

4.3.10.2

Document Review

What respondents discussed was evaluated against the school’s internal documents: department meeting minutes, matrix meeting minutes, education and training committee meeting minutes, and overseas matrix meeting minutes. These documents were reviewed for the periods between July 2011 and July 2012 and between 10 August 2012 and 10 September 2012. Document reviews were a useful source of information on programme activities and processes, and they allowed the author to generate ideas for questions in the interviews (Patton, 1990). References to relevant documents were available for review, and observed evidence of organisational charts, meeting minutes, knowledge repositories, the shared network drive, and communication and collaborative tools were viewed. The purpose of reviewing these systems,

4.3 Methods

97

resources and meeting minutes was to gain a better understanding of activities and practices within the organisation, which enabled the author to identify the overall organisational structure.

Transcribing Data The audio files were converted to text transcripts using an MP4-to-Word document converter. The author removed participants’ names and removed job specific abbreviations used in the organisation. The transcript was also shared with participants (on 5 November 2012) to check for accuracy and anonymity. NVivo10 was employed for constant comparison and memoing and resulted in themes, sub-categories and core categories. RapidMiner studio transformed data and tokenized operators, with their interconnection. The frequency of occurrence of particular word could be found and also able to compare two text documents by comparing their keyword frequency occurrence. In this book, the data were analysed for evidence of learning activities, practices and mechanisms adopted in managing knowledge in a geographically dispersed environment and implementation of innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed site. The enabling factors emerged through the description of the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate learning, development of knowledge and implementation of new practices provided by participant focus group discussions and various interviews. Author analysed data using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), whereby line, sentence and paragraph segments of the transcribed discussion, interviews, field notes, memos and journals were reviewed to decide what codes fit the concepts suggested by the data. Patton (2002) mentions that qualitative inquiry is especially powerful. Therefore, qualitative data analysis was performed using NVivo10. This software enabled the author to identify subtle differences and distances for abstraction and synthesis. Tools available in this software enabled the use of queries and text searches to interrogate the database and to summarise the results (Bazeley, 2007). Ideas emerging from the data were catalogued and easily accessible, which were linked to data and documented as they developed using NVivo10 (Richards, 2009).

Developing a Metanarrative The author created a narrative from the transcripts that were generated from the discussions and interviews, and it was uploaded in an NVivo10 project file for analysis. The metanarrative was sampled from the 15-page document gathered in the focus group discussion. It did not aim to represent the complete data set, but rather provide experiences across the three work areas for exploration in the development of codes for use in Phase 2. The author again looked to Strauss and Corbin (1990) for direction in the selection of text. She selected interesting stories which were

98 Table 4.2 Codes developed prior to category development

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings Project Learning and leadership 090812 Node Listing 1

Activities

16

Like

2

Community

17

Mangers

3

Culture

18

New

4

Department

19

Practices

5

Development

20

Process

6

Institute

21

Profession

7

Leaders

22

Professional

8

Leadership

23

Schools

9

Learn

24

Sharing

10

Learning

25

Skills

11

Lecturers

26

Training

12

Experience

27

Teaching

13

Meeting

28

Travel

14

Management

29

Well

15

Moral

30

Work

repeated or contained rich explanations. A detailed discourse that described a highenergy individuals forming groups with self-effort and working in a geographically dispersed environment with passion, trust, commitment, using technology and implementing solutions in a geographically dispersed site (in which a great deal of learning took place) was included. Also, a variety and range of discussions were used in the metanarrative that provided a wide perspective of participants.

Preliminary Coding The author developed codes, and constant comparative analyses were performed throughout the phase. This enabled the author to make sense of the information pattern. Thus, prior to meeting participants, the author was able to identify 30 open codes presented in Table 4.2 from this brief exploration of the data. This process allowed author for constant comparative analysis recognising information through participants’ discourses. This preliminary coding was examined further using Contextual Semantic Search presented in Fig. 4.1 by taking messages and a concept (like Project Learning and Leadership) as input and it filtered all the messages that closely match with the given concept. It further aided the author for understanding category development.

4.3 Methods

99

Fig. 4.1 Contextual semantic search

4.3.10.3

Phase 2: Category Development

Author worked on the metadata in August 2012 and developed themes and categories to seek participants’ consensus. This phase of the research focused on categorizing the descriptions and looking closely at the underlying concepts by comparing and contrasting discussions and themes. The outcome of open coding from the focus group discussion resulted in themes, sub-categories and core categories. The author developed themes and categories through a discussion about emergent concepts, and the author questioned the reasons why a concept was identified. The author reflected and raised questions such as ‘What is happening here in this discussion?’ ‘What is this person really saying here?’ ‘What is the underlying concept?’ ‘What does this tell us and what else is going on?’ Similar questions were raised in order to investigate the current issues.

Coding Exercise The author facilitated a coding exercise using a single passage of transcript to illustrate the method, following the direction of Strauss and Corbin (1998, pp. 102– 106). In Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) words, in order to ‘uncover, name, and develop concepts, we must open up the text and expose the thoughts, ideas, and meanings contained therein’ (p. 102). Participants were briefed on the concepts of coding using NVivo in grounded methodology. Patterns were recognised, and the process of updating understanding was accomplished. The author encouraged the use of participants’ own words in the development of codes and described the nature of in vivo codes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In addition, the development of themes and categories allowed for better understanding.

100

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Table 4.3 Codes developed during coding exercise Project Learning, knowledge, and improvement 23032013 Node Listing 1

Achieve

8

Diverse

15

New

2

Accept feedback

9

Encourage

16

Outcomew

3

Allow

10

Focus

17

Power

4

Best practices

11

Honesty

18

Support

5

Challenge

12

Implementation

6

Connect

13

Lead

7

Direction

14

Local

Fig. 4.2 Sentiment analysis

The codes identified were shared with everyone to see. In the first few minutes of discussion, the code ‘support’ was established, and in another discussion, the codes ‘focus, direction, and implementation were developed. One section of text was worked through by participants, and the number of new codes being developed declined. At the end of the session, 18 codes in Table 4.3 had been identified. Field notes were taken by the author during this exercise for review at a later stage. Participants were presented on the concepts of coding using NVivo. Patterns were recognised, and the process of updating understanding was accomplished. The number of positive comments related to knowledge, learning and improvement have outnumbered the negative ones. “Best Practices” has been most talked about code amongst participants. Sentiment analysis as illustrated in Fig. 4.2 helps to build upon the positive opinions from the particpants or get feedback from the negative opinions to make effective decisions. Though this process was not required from the methodological point of view, author and participants’ sense-making, and identification of themes

4.3 Methods

101

allowed author for updating understanding, and to seek participants’ consensus for common understanding. This coding exercise highlighted the strength of this research on sense-making approach in valuing participants’ agreement. Thus, this coding exercise and presentation by the author facilitated the process of updating participants’ understanding and consensus. The author further developed codes and constant comparative analyses were performed throughout the phase. This enabled the author to make sense of the information pattern.

Semi-structured Interview As participants could consent to the codes developed and categorised, the same group was invited for semi-structured interviews for more clarity and deeper insight. Semistructured interviews were conducted for more than one hour. The author sought to establish rapport with participants in the early stages of the interview, achieving a ‘relaxed and encouraging’ atmosphere (Ackroyd & Hughes, 1992, p. 108). The semi-structured interviews were conducted for more than an hour to gather a cluster of themes in order to establish the theoretical framework. As the new codes were presented, the author probed questions relating to the pattern that was developing. More questions were probed to gain richer insight into category properties and dimensions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), and participants elaborated on their own individual experiences. Symon, Cassell and Dickson (2000) points out that, when done well, semistructured interviews may be the most important form of interviewing for case studies because they yield the ‘richest single source of data’ (p. 65). This session was again voice-recorded, and the full transcript was made and provided to participants for review and confirmation. Upon updating understanding and confirmation, the transcript was uploaded in the NVivo10 project file along with the nodes.

4.3.10.4

Phase 3: Grouping Codes and Early Categories

Two or more related categories or concepts give rise to a theory (McMillan & Schumacher, 1993), which is referred to as a ‘proposition’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 278). Since several conceptual relationships (i.e. concepts) are required to define a theory, such theories are said to be conceptually dense. Author worked towards grouping categories further on the data collected from the semi-structured interviews. She immersed in this process of clustering and developed relation topology from information mapping. She connected the themes and developed associations from the concepts into groups. The clusters focused around: • Training, teaching and learning, on the job training and education. • Trust, ownership and responsibility for doing work. • Staff development, leaders, influence and meetings.

102

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

• Diversity, individuality and self-reliance. • Role modelling, direction, guide, and what you want to do. • Can do, willingness to share, new method, technology and repository. This phase involved seeking to understand how the author interpreted or understood information gathered from the participants and presented the clusters to the participants for a mutual agreement and shared understanding. The author worked with categories, the hierarchical position of codes in nodes and the merging of categories and codes and then split these into further sub-categories. The author then developed definitions of these categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

4.3.10.5

Phase 4: Category saturation and theoretical sampling

Framework of Categories The author returned to the site to collect more data to refine the codes. Strauss and Corbin (1998, p. 212) highlight the value of sampling previously collected data, as the data reveals more to the author as the author’s sensitivity to concepts grows. The author sampled from the complete transcripts in development of the evolving theory. The transcript aided effective progress and further sampling, and the category saturation apparent in phase 3 was tested. The author analysed full transcripts obtained from all of the three phases, applying codes developed during the phase 1 and 2, and applying the outcomes of the phase 3 exercises in clustering the concepts. The author developed new codes and reviewed a number of concepts that merged. Memos were then coded for future reference. The discourse with participants and the rationale for the codes and categories aided the author in the analysis of the full data set and in building codes and categories. The author worked in an iterative manner to refine the codes, writing the draft report and developing categories throughout the discussions and interviews with participants throughout phases 1–4. This iterative process allowed the author to juggle between transcript, nodes and trees to develop a framework of categories. The author then explored the examples until no new categories emerged. The process involving the coding data and the emergence of concepts was daunting in the initial stages, but as the process progressed, it became a resourceful and satisfying process that taught me a great deal about rigorous research. Coding and categorizing in the grounded theory approach demand a chain of analysis and time and requires the relating of findings to other theories. This experience of coding/categorizing gave the author sensitivity to other theories, as the process of coding and considering relationships between codes makes it easier to think theoretically about other theories (Glaser, 1978). The loose clusters were developed by participants. This clustering was important to the author because it provided access to participants’ understanding and provided insight into the codes that participants used to group the clusters. These clusters formed the foundation for core category development. They were further described

4.3 Methods

103

and analysed based on the innovation theory, as they revealed the models to which the author was already sensitive. The model was also confirmed by the participants. The loose group took less than an hour for participants, and the collection of codes into clusters by participants was reasonably fast too. The recognition of the collection’s resonance with innovation concepts took some weeks for the author to grasp, and confirmation of the model as a categorizing tool took some months longer. However, the actual understanding of the alignment of the categories and the model was sudden. The author initially thought of rejecting the model and looking for alternative readings and emergent themes. Finally, the study shifted to look at constructing the theory in a new setting. Therefore, the analysis was developed through iterative analysis of the data and theory, resulting in more insight into the data and contributions to the theory. The author recognised different themes aligned to the personal effects and the instrument of innovation concepts. The emergent themes reinforced existing theory and fresh findings were revealed. Some central categories are briefly offered here to illustrate some of the points. Organisational structures and organisational characteristics, for example, emerged as a central category through participants describing events, the knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities in which supports social interaction, learning, the way they created knowledge shared through interaction, mentors, and how they shared experiences and awareness based on their common understanding and actions were developed locally and improvised processes were implemented in a geographically dispersed site. Collective relationship was another important category, and incidents of staff interaction that involved collaborative culture for learning, managing knowledge and practically implementing improvised and new processes in a geographically dispersed environment were portrayed. The category Collective networks, too, was developed from discussions about group dynamic behaviour that were undirected and helped to improve the coherence of the group. Once the clusters of themes were recognised to align with the innovation concepts, the descriptions provided by the model were used for further sampling of data. New data was not required, as the sampling developed in the previously collected participants’ descriptions was considered adequate. The theory’s inducement to explore more examples fostered some insight to the theory as it developed within this context. As theoretical sampling developed, the model was confirmed to be mostly descriptive of the experiences of the participants. However, there were new findings and also strengthened the theory. As categories developed, there were important connections between them (this will be developed in later chapters between Chaps. 5 and 7). The connections were created and investigated through the search for data. Sampling was performed on the data for evaluation and confirmation or to discern any differences. In this research, the investigation and development of concepts oriented towards extant theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The theory remained grounded in the data but added sensitivity to the data, and these data reciprocally contributed to the developing theory.

104

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

The themes that emerged from the connections between categories and establishing on relationship of OL, KM, and innovation were helpful in explaining many aspects of the data, but there were some new areas in which the theory effectively offered through analyses of participants’ experiences. One notable example is in the category collective relationships presenting the property of innovativeness. This study revealed that responsible individuals who form collective networks and connected well contribute and influence practical implementation of improvised and new processes among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. OL, KM, and innovation is developed through experts who travelled and were co-located during their work tenure is perceived as innovation. Other minor themes that appeared in participants’ discourse were not adequately represented by the theory; these were used to highlight gaps in the innovation theory application to this setting and to contribute to its development. Modifications to the hypotheses are reflected in the contributions to innovation theory and in its application to this organisation. The theory is a developing one and grounded as it is in this data, it accommodated some important variations.

Presenting a Summary of the Findings Clustering of codes is designed to encapsulate a group’s collaborated agreement on the nodes. The focus group interview was conducted for 45 min, and the same group of seven volunteered to review the draft report. The author presented the draft report, and a summary of the findings was given via a PowerPoint presentation in order to seek participants’ feedback. The author displayed the codes and nodes and the summary of the findings. The author described the features of innovation concepts developed from the clusters in phase 3. The group then clarified the characteristics, mechanisms that facilitated the members’ learning in geographically dispersed sites, the mechanisms used and understanding the use in managing knowledge across geographically dispersed environment and generation of new ideas and processes. Participants discussed the appropriateness of terms such as knowledge and diversity, using the words to further develop their discussion of ‘tacit boundary’ and ‘overt boundary’ issues in their interaction. The group responded positively to the findings. The terms and descriptors provided a new language through which they could discuss the experience. The language imparted a new way to build the themes that emerged as important to their understanding of learning, development of knowledge and innovation experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. Consideration of and reflection on their feedback improved the quality of the findings, and the entire session was audio-recorded. The full transcript was provided to participants for review and confirmation, and on confirmation, the transcript was placed in the NVivo project file along with the codes (or nodes in NVivo). This study drew on the author’s interpretation and construction of both in the development and analysis of transcripts through sensemaking activities. The individual and collective experiences were shared during the discourse within a social context, which resulted in common understanding. At the end of this

4.3 Methods

105

session, the group collectively took responsibility for confirming the author’s interpreted meanings. Lincoln and Guba (2000) say that ‘any agreement regarding what is valid knowledge—arises from the relationship between members of some stake holding community’ (p. 177). Thus, the coding, analysis and categories created were authorised by the organisational members and confirmed the author’s interpreted meaning. A fuller understanding of the properties and dimensions emerged during ‘relational and variational sampling’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 210). Relational sampling is frequently employed with the objective of locating data that confirms the relationships between categories; this was employed during axial coding. This process allowed the author to look for evidence of variation or differences within and across the data and to then test how well the emerging theory held up in this new setting.

4.3.10.6

Phase 5: Theoretical Integration and Grounding the Theory

The results of this last stage of coding formed the theoretical model for this study. Data analysis consistently referred to extant literature for theoretical validity. This allowed the author to present the analysed data and to discuss emergent theoretical structure for the participants’ mutual agreement on the constructed meaning. Weick (1995) suggests that authors should ground an emergent theory through validation against collective learning, data analysis and existing literature. According to Patton (1989), ‘real issues’ have been developed through ‘methodological flexibility and appropriateness’ (p. 181). In this study the author has undertaken a flexible approach to present the codes, categories, findings and draft chapters prior to grounding and building the theory.

Grounding the Theory Through Data Interpretation The final verification procedure was a thorough discussion of the empirical grounding of the study, according to the criteria described by Strauss and Corbin (1998). These eight criteria involve the author: (i) evaluating whether concepts are generated; (ii) examining the systematic relationships among the concepts; (iii) determining whether many conceptual linkages exist, categories are well developed, and categories have conceptual density; (iv) building variation into the theory; (v) explaining the conditions under which variation is built into the study and explained; (vi) taking process into account; (vii) determining the significance of theoretical findings and the extent of significance; (viii) and anticipating whether the theory will stand the test of time, perhaps through clear links to relevant literature. By assimilating these eight criteria into the verification procedures, the theory-building process of this study is transparent to the reader and is discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter.

106

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Innovation Theory as an Organising Device Section 4.8 summarises in detail the findings of this study and lays out a range of identified categories, which are analysed and categorised in a way that would lead to the assumption of the innovation theory used for further analysis. In the analysis, the author documented that the nodes, in Nvivo10 codes, categories were developed and category saturation in phase 3 reflected aspects of innovation concepts (Balestrin, Vargas, & Fayard, 2008; Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Johannessen, 2013; Leiponen & Helfat, 2010; Taatila, Suomala, Siltala, & Keskinen, 2006; Xu, 2011) facilitating OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed educational environment. The research was sensitive to the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitated OL, KM, and innovation experiences of people located in a geographically dispersed PEI. The emergence of the model in the categories developed by the participants was seen as significant. Therefore, the research decided to use and aid discussion ascertaining on the innovation theory simply to lay the foundation for data analysis as well as providing input into developing theories of innovation in grounded research among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisational context. The emergent characteristics and mechanisms of innovation theory concepts and the grounded theory approach typically show two kinds of emergent properties: spontaneous order due to interactions of system elements and innovation due to evolution over time (Tilebein, 2006). This model served as a sensitising device through its elaboration of the model within a new context. The model provided definitions, components of categories and an underpinning for the theoretical sampling of data. In addition, it provided the basis for the development of the model within this research context. The author performed theoretical sampling by selecting codes for each node in the model and comparing them against descriptions of elements of innovation theory concepts in the literature. Detailed discussions were developed from the innovation theory concepts and used in the analysis of the findings. A brief sweep of literature and seminal materials published with the lay reader in mind includes Hernes (2004), Kanchana, Law, Comepa, Malithong, & Phusavat (2011; see Appendix A), Kennedy (2010), McElroy (2003), Murray and Blackman (2006), and Stacey (2003a). Discussion about social innovation (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Taatila et al., 2006), architectural innovation (Balestrin et al., 2008; Leiponen & Helfat, 2010) and cultural innovation (Johannessen, 2013; Xu, 2011) in organisations is important to the development of the theoretical framework for this research project. Their work bridges OL, KM, and innovation in a local environment in different industries. Less attention is paid to geographically disperse educational organisation. In this study, the emergent themes revealed the factors of innovation concepts that emerged from participants’ discourse. The definitions in the extant literature (Choo & Alvarenga Neto, 2010; Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Johannessen, 2013) (see Table 4.4) supported the author’s choice for reinforcing innovation theory for discussions and implications that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed environment.

4.3 Methods

107

Table 4.4 Definitions derived from innovation theory extant literature Three concepts of innovation Social innovation

The generation and implementation of new ideas about how people should organise interpersonal activities, or social interactions, to meet one or more common goals (Mumford, 2002). New ideas about social systems and social interactions, while rare, can have a tremendous impact on our lives and world (Marcy & Mumford, 2007) Social innovation can be understood as ‘new ideas that simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaboration’ (Murray, Caulier-Grice, & Mulgan, 2010, p. 3)

Architectural innovation

Choo and Alvarenga Neto (2010) describe architectural innovation as ‘the creation of meeting and ‘sharing spaces/points’ (Lechner & Dowling, 2003) design of virtual and physical layout and workplaces environments (Von Krogh, Nonaka, & Ichijo, 1997) promotion of regular knowledge conferences and support of micro-communities of knowledge (Von Krogh et al., 2000); stimulus to social and ‘informal gatherings’ (Bennett, 2001)

Cultural innovation

Cultural innovations are ‘related to norms, values, habits, expectations and new ways of thinking’ (Johannessen, 2013)

The author continued with the iterative process while simultaneously working with the codes and model categories, exploring each and informing an understanding of the other. Strauss and Corbin (1990) epitomise this understanding as a quality of the process of sampling, stating that the ‘more sensitive the author is to the theoretical relevance of certain concepts, the more likely he or she is to recognise indicators of those concepts in the data’ (p. 206). Appendix B shows the categorization of codes developed with participants and more categories and code developed through to the theoretical integration.

Testing and Filling the Research Gaps The presence of existing theory made the process challenging. These previous findings and concepts focused on local organisations and less attention paid to geographically dispersed private education organisation. This study’s findings revealed the factors, characteristics and mechanisms facilitating the interaction of social relationships and networks, the organisational structures for managing knowledge and using shared understanding for organisational members’ interaction and for implementing new processes in a geographically dispersed environment. The presence of existing theory allowed the author to reinforce and add to the body of knowledge. This study offers the factors that influence learning, management of knowledge and its development between social interaction of people, functions, and technology use, and how members share common understanding and physically apply their mental skill in a geographically dispersed educational environment.

108

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Cummings and Teng’s (2006) study presents the context for knowledge sharing in geographically dispersed organisations. Contrast to their study, this study investigates the creation, development, sharing, integration and management of knowledge. This study in a geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in a private educational organisation offers the facilitators for OL, KM, and innovation experiences which establishes on innovation theory. Testing and filling the gaps in the research was simplified using the experiences of participants in their geographically dispersed organisational environment as they reflected on aspects of innovation. This also highlighted gaps in the theory. There were new outcomes between the theory and the data, which presented significant insight into the data and the theory of innovation. At this stage, the author spent considerable time studying both the literature and the data, using most of the time to identify ways in which one informed the other and categorizing and connecting the network of relationships between theory, concepts and categories‘.

Outlining Theory and Validation with Data The author moved continually between theory, data, coding and categorization. In the iterative process of testing the theory against the data, a number of insights developed, particularly in relation to the characteristics that facilitated ‘learning’ and ‘learning systems’, ‘social structures’, ‘physical structures’ and ‘epistemic cognition’ emerged, alongside the mechanisms of KM and innovation processes in geographically dispersed individuals and team members within this PEI were developed. These categories became a focal discussion point of learning, KM, and practical implementation of new practices in this study. The author maintained a critical perspective on the model and the data. She persistently spent most of the time comparing the data with the descriptors and identifying examples. This repeated process contributed some new understanding to the model and to the data. For example, when comparing the data coded to ‘learning’, ‘collective relationships’ and ‘collective networks’ to the definition, the participants clearly illustrated their selection of others with whom to collaborate and work in partnership while traveling between different sites and working in co-located groups within this organisation influencing creativity and learning. This process of constant comparison of data and establishing uplinks with relationships continued. This process went on until the connections held intact in the developing model. The research echoed the phenomenon identified by Strauss and Corbin (1990), where ‘sampling often continues right into the writing because it often is at these times when persons discover that certain categories are not fully developed’ (p. 214). This was experienced in the study, including while writing up the findings. The iterative process of analysing data and sampling, developing theory, exploring meanings and insight of concepts continued even beyond writing the findings and literature review.

4.4 Summary of Findings

109

4.4 Summary of Findings Strauss and Corbin (1998) noted that ‘by the end of the inquiry, the author is shaped by the data, just as the data are shaped by the author’ (p. 42). The author structured and designed the study according to a broad research question. However, as the study progressed, the data also shaped the research question. This study’s findings are the result of the experiences and discussions of the participants. The participants’ responses took the form of discussion with short anecdotes used as examples, and they are used in the development of this written book. The grounded theories in the following chapters integrate the relevant existing literature into the presentations of data (Locke, 2001), extending the theoretical elements of the developing theory as illustrated in Fig. 4.3. The summary of findings is illustrated in Fig. 4.4 that depicts a model with three factors in relation to social innovation (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Taatila et al., 2006), architectural innovation (Balestrin et al., 2008; Leiponen & Helfat, 2010) and cultural innovation (Johannessen, 2013; Xu, 2011) facilitating learning, knowledge development and innovation in a geographically dispersed educational environment.

Fig. 4.3 Theoretical model integrating characteristics and mechanisms facilitating OL, KM, and innovation experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team

110

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Fig. 4.4 Model integrating social, architectural and cultural innovation factors, characteristics and mechanisms facilitating OL, KM, and innovation experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team

This study explored and discussed the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate learning, construction of knowledge and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. Learning, knowledge and innovation are introduced as an interrelated and integrating device which promises new perspectives in the fields. This study leads to a fuller and detailed understanding of learning, knowledge in geographically dispersed individuals and team members and the practical implementation of innovation. This contributes to complete point of view on their relationship rather than what their separate investigation could provide. In this study, collaborative learning supports development of knowledge in geographically dispersed individuals, team members in a private educational organisation. Knowledge and its development in geographically dispersed individuals and team members are constructed, represented, and embedded in social interactions and is practically implemented through social learning activities in a geographically dispersed working environment. This section highlights the effective collaborative interaction where knowledge is embedded and developed which practically implements new solutions, prompts novel ways to solve problems and, suggests new processes to adopt in organisational practices. This chapter brings together learning, knowledge and innovation using participants’ construction of the meaning of these words, and related phrases from the interview quotes inform the analysis of findings. Some of the discussions of the literature are developed in the early introduction together with the construction of the definitions through participants’ shared language, activity and understanding in a particular PEI.

4.4 Summary of Findings

111

Table 4.5 Categories and properties of concepts Coded Data Set

Categories

Concepts

Support, self-motivated, self-confidence, self-reliance, self-worth, self-belief, passion and nurture

Collective relationships Collective networks

Social innovation

Change, effectiveness, seeking Organisational characteristics Architectural innovation knowledge, co-located, distance, Organisational structures travel, local, valuing people, valuing the job, knowledge sharing, trust, positive risk, taking risk, monitoring performance, control, responsibility, commitment, passion, emotion, connected environment, direction and all-round coherence Values, expectations, habits, enhance Tacit values skills, feedback, mechanisms, change Overt values and tangible learning needs

Cultural innovation

In this research, the innovation theory draws attention to the social, architectural and cultural innovation factors, characteristics, and mechanisms that are facilitated for forming social learning relationship, managing knowledge, and innovation in a geographically dispersed educational environment. The emergent concepts from the coded data set are presented in Table 4.5. In this study, social innovation is a process that develops new behaviours through evolving relationships and networks. These networks facilitate interaction internally and externally to learn, interact, manage knowledge and enhance individual and collective innovation competence in the organisation. Architectural innovation is a process in which the organisation reorients and exploits communication channels, knowledge repositories, knowledge filters, problem-solving approaches and geographically dispersed working environment designs. It links both the formal and informal interactions between the teams in a new way. Cultural innovation is a process that draws on the shared beliefs in an organisation and ideas inherent in diverse knowledge. It makes meaning from the experience of people with different backgrounds by providing feedback and modifying previously accessible cultural factors. These are ideas, experiences and practices that are useful at different times and locations in an organisation. A variety of studies illustrating the conceptual fundamentals are compared in order to explain the relationships between the categories and their properties. The author seeks to discuss the factors surrounded within innovation concepts that facilitate learning, KM and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment so that it makes sense of both the data from the study and the data from the literature (e.g. Dick, 2005; Kennedy, 2006, 2010; Locke, 2001; Vaughan, 1992). In this study, the collective relationships within team members located in geographically dispersed locations are based on trust, passion and motivation.

112

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Collective networks within the physical environment provide conditions for establishing tangible structures to adjust work, to support activities of knowledge processes and to form team structures with empowered team members, including leadership support. The organisational structures and organisational characteristics portray the virtual space structures that make use of communication channels using the Internet, social media networking and knowledge-based repositories to facilitate problem-solving approaches and formal and informal interactions between individuals and team members. Tacit values and overt values portray the mental environment that allows circumstances to interact with diverse people who shared beliefs on diverse knowledge. Furthermore, members’ shared beliefs add meaning to experience, with diverse people who work in formal and informal groups developing common knowledge and thinking at individual and collective levels of a collective network. The theory below draws attention to the various important areas under discussion that are helpful in understanding the factors, processes and experiences of learning, managing knowledge and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. Following this section, an overview of emerging categories forming a theory is presented. And, it finally concludes by presenting the findings of this study, providing a fuller understanding about the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members.

4.5 Grounded Theory of Learning, Knowledge and Innovation This section presents how the participants define learning, knowledge and innovation. Participants’ definition for these terms lay emphasis on the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate collaborative learning activities that influence knowledge development in individuals, team members, and organisations and efficient implementation of innovation in a geographically dispersed educational environment.

4.5.1 Learning Learning for these participants is illustrated as collaborative, working naturally occurring at daily working environment both locally and across geographically dispersed colleagues, and is valued to the individual and collective. M310: And also, my lecturers, I can see that they have problem solving skills. We work and trust and communicate more … Yes, it is a teamwork. It is a collaborative work.

Participants spoke about learning as an activity in handling daily work practices. Learning is seen as developing from interaction with organisational members in a

4.5 Grounded Theory of Learning, Knowledge and Innovation

113

geographically dispersed working environment and facilitating social interaction. The diversity of the situation contributes to learning. M42: We share our teaching practices. We share the difficulties and the fun part of managing our students as compared to the own campus students as well, so yes. And these university partners when they come down for examination boards… F38: We discuss about handling difficult students, how to engage students in learning processes, and what teaching styles can be used to handle different cohorts of students from different cultural backgrounds…

Learning resulting from interactions with a diverse group was described by the participants. Collaborative interaction in local office and in a geographically dispersed working environment has also been defined as ‘the process through which one unit (e.g. individual, group, department and division) is affected by the experience of another’ (Argote & Ingram, 2000, p. 3). In this organisation, the acquisition, sharing, integration of organisational capabilities from specially created business units and the social interaction between subsidiaries within the organisation located at a distance influencing learning, knowledge generation and implementing practices are evident. M222: While we travel to […] to teach, our lecturers are also learning the newer skills. At any stage of a lecturer’s career, this knowledge sharing, this mentoring training helps them to understand. F13: They also shared their practices. One of them also said that action learning or experiential learning allowed them to look at new things. F28: We interact every month. In fact, every week we have different types of meeting sessions, formal meeting sessions because of different schools and because of this matrix structure.

4.5.1.1

Individual and Collective Learning

Participants described the influence of learning from individuals and team members who are willing to share existing practices and implement them in a new situation. Participants described the influence of role models on their individual learning. Leaders at all levels aim to ensure that organisational actions are consistent with organisational values, and they also look for opportunities to learn in the process. Role modelling is perceived to support an orientation from which learning progresses. Learning from leaders, with members of the organisation imparting their ideas to the team, is exemplified in this respondent’s words. F315: This is very important for me, and this is what I also expect my staff and I also influence them to stand-up for a change and be stronger and more certain with this proactiveness. So, it is rather than just doing, it is just we’ll lead, leading them to a comfort zone. And proactiveness, though I can’t expect from all, but me being a role model, I try to be proactive. I am a bit courageous. So, it is my own efficacy, so I am able to influence these characteristics as I learn from my leaders, to my team. F226: It is learning to encourage and inspire others. So, while I do this to the students, it is also encouraging my fellow colleagues. It’s also influencing. It’s also inspiring my fellow colleagues in developing skills to lead, to empower, to be a mentor, to be a good buddy, to be a good coach and mentor others to do the same.

114

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Participants spoke about mentoring and coaching. The process of OL has been conventionally believed to be an intentional one, with the goal of improving organisational effectiveness (Huber, 1991, pp. 88–89). Innovation in OL involves identifying a balance between exploratory in regards in quest of new knowledge and exploitative in using or refining existing knowledge processes (March, 1991) so that members have an environment favourable to learning and the results from learning are enjoyed by the organizing. Participants discussed authority delegation, motivation, job enrichment and high involvement the elements associated with empowerment. F35: We build trust by talking to them and sharing with them in informal manners and formal meetings too. I empower my staff with key responsibilities in key projects. F11: We align our institute and staff by investing in structured learning programme with continued education for individuals over a long term. This is to ensure that motivation levels remain high and staffs feels empowered to challenge business as usual in the interest of practice improvement.

Participants defined learning as the specific activities carried out by the individual, collective and the organisation to enhance effectiveness and learning. Specific mention was made of the teaching and learning-sharing sessions and meetings, educational training meetings, academic council member meetings, staff professional development and leadership training. M26: I have positive intention, willingness to help, and willingness to grow my staff Since I have this attitude, then I grow my staff … & see growth in my lecturers to take up leadership roles too.

Despite such initiatives effectively promoting the sharing of learning, scant implementation of such learning takes place at certain times, which resulted in a comment by a respondent. M218: actively interacting through learning circles activity as well. But you can see that many people; they also – some of the lecturers – face this issue over here: no time to improve practices … and educational training meetings effectively promote the sharing of learning.

4.5.1.2

Learning Orientation

Commitment, shared understanding and group interactive mechanisms consider the importance of teamwork and learning orientation. The significant internal processes that put emphasis on the innovation are the leadership processes, team structure and learning organisation culture. Participants spoke about their leaders and how department heads in this organisation foster knowledge transformation to their team or group. And, they reinforce organisational knowledge by promoting and supporting group interaction and communication to overcome the obstacles created by knowledge embedded in individual. Thus, the planned team activities in the organisation facilitate learning so that people can become more effective in carrying out aspects of their work, and it is apparent from the participants’ discussion below.

4.5 Grounded Theory of Learning, Knowledge and Innovation

115

M14: This is very obvious and when it comes to knowledge sharing, it is basically on commitment from individual lecturers. So, the commitment can differ from one lecturer to another lecturer, one staff to another staff, but there is sharing M11: We also have training for managing Gen-Y customer services, people management or team building skills. M22: And this training makes employees... okay, we call it training or it could be a staff development activity. F12: To motivate our lecturers in writing skills, especially to write papers for the management journal. F21: Training activities: they have a good impact on relationships, especially of leadership development on our department effectiveness as an institute’s effectiveness using these training activities.

Tacit knowledge embedded in individuals is made available via such planned activities for team members. A learning attitude at work is described by one of the members: even though at times they find it an unsettling process, they are able to find direction and pathway towards all-round coherence (M312). M312: emmm… the university partners will feel ‘we’. We have these best practices compared to those in our institute. And another team could also be that long time staff. They would like to cling on to their practices or they have this presumption that they have more skills, more experience gained from this institute – whereas the newest staffs don’t have this power to break the silos. But new staffs come in with newer perspective.

Another respondent described that attitude towards learning support a naturally disposed process flow in individuals (M26). Learning is presented as solving work related issues emerging from interactions. F39: Even managing the Gen-Y type of students is a challenge and contrary to part-time students who come that reach experience, but with poor academic skills. So, that will be those who are basically baby boomers and Generation X. M39: Managing students, managing lecturers to deal with different type of students, and the teaching skills required to handle different types of students. F211: The management style required is teamwork of consensus, participation and we have this. We learn through the teaching and learning practices… M17: As I transfer my experience and knowledge to my staff, I also at the same time learn skills from my staff because I also manage different generations of staff so I do get advice. I seek knowledge from my staff as well.

All participants discussed learning in terms of their daily work and all interactions within their organisational working environment. In this study, learning in a geographically dispersed environment includes social interaction for handling work issues, both formal and informal learning, and important informal learning includes employees consulting with, or seeking advice from, other colleagues and even from wider contacts, such as professional networks, suppliers and customers. In this organisation, participants’ construction of learning exemplifies willingness, synergy, positive intention, growth and innovation, and open-mindedness to feedback and appreciation, which may lead to both positive and negative outcomes for the organisation. This can be revealed as a process that transpires through individuals and team members’ performance in the organisation.

116

4.5.1.3

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Formal Learning

Learning in this organisation, included formal training approaches relevant to their work in a geographically dispersed environment. Learning to these participants is as much about training and learning for job context and processes as it is for attitudes and skills, as members need to shift to a training-intensive industry with new roles and skills. Training is related to learning for these participants, and this was extensively planned and incorporated for the organisation’s members. The word training or mentoring is extensively used in this organisation to associate learning in context. Such learning processes meet organisational needs and are relevant to the careers of the learners. In addition, this also reflects as a knowledge flow, which is the way created knowledge shared through training between individuals and team members. F21: training activities, they have a good impact on relationship especially of leadership development on our department effectiveness as an institute’s effectiveness using these training activities. M110: mentoring, we find that not necessarily to be something done on the first day of the lecturer’s job. And we, here in our institute, follow this throughout our tenure; be it while we are located in Singapore or while we travel to [deleted].

The term change resonates well with those OL experts who believe that learning is essentially a change strategy. Such change is clearly taking place to an extent in this organisation. OL processes are being properly documented in this organisation, with responses indicating that learning occurs on three different levels: individual, team and organisational. M218: We are continuously improving practices but it could be like where we store all this information would be on like a network shared drive. This example from the focus group discussion illustrates a participant’s sensemaking in regards to the relationship between individual, collective, and organisational knowledge development.

Participants described learning that is achieved through social interaction among individuals and team members in a geographically dispersed environment and how new knowledge turn into routine output of the learning organisation. Furthermore, participants discussed their social learning processes that have a strong and definitive role to play in their organisation, which is a PEI where OL is achieved through integrated KM initiatives. KM initiatives are achieved by capturing knowledge which is embedded in individuals and team members through social activity.

4.5.2 Knowledge Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of ‘knowers’

4.5 Grounded Theory of Learning, Knowledge and Innovation

117

(Baskerville & Dulipovici, 2006, p. 84). Knowledge has been long cited as a strategic asset and a source of competitive advantage for organisations (Magnier-Watanabae, Benton, & Senoo, 2011, p. 17). In this study, knowledge and its development in individuals, team members and organisation is acquired from past problem resolutions; making decisions; and, knowledge repositories. Participants reflected understanding and experiences of KM. They made repeated reference to phrases such as ‘searching for knowledge in network drives’, sharing knowledge via Moodle, WebEx and blackboard’, ‘information repository’ and ‘seeking knowledge via Facebook interaction’. A fusion of such terms revealed that participants perceive a masked connection between KM and technology. M218: ‘We are continuously improving practices but it could be like where we store all this information would be like on a network shared drive’. M41: And these minutes are follow-up actions, working strategies. It’s also made available in our repository which is the shared resource of a shared point resource, network resources.

Therefore, it is evident that this organisation takes into account its internal knowledge integration of human and technological assets. Thus, integrating functional technological knowledge can result in innovative firm performance. Also, the organisation deals with numerous activities based on differentiated technologies. The overall perception of individuals is that KM is largely a social activity and knowledge is embedded in social interactions among individuals and team members. Though the participants spoke about transferring and acquisition of knowledge relies on technology-based concept, focus on construction and managing knowledge through social activity was predominant. Such a perception reflects that this organisation has invested heavily in information technology equipment in a bid to encourage social interaction for sharing knowledge and KM processes among its members. People from various departments having related knowledge makes it possible to promote tacit knowledge sharing in face-to-face meetings and through virtual information exchanges. F315: Our leaders challenges our thinking process and they ask us to listen more, ask more questions. So, our leaders encourage people, our head of schools to ask more questions so that we can come up with more answers and does will make us more involved. M116: I totally agree, it depends, it really depends like in my team, we are more targeted. We are more direct, yes. Sometimes – yes, collaborative shared leadership also matters. Yes. If it had to be more relational, yes, I agree. What I believe will be that we develop community.

The motivation to share knowledge through team members in an intraorganisational social media platform reflects the desire to help the organisation reach its goals and help colleagues. M221: Through social media networking where we formally communicate through blackboard model. But informally, we share knowledge also using social media like Face book.

118

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Vuori and Okkonen (2012) claim that social media applications are useful in a work context, and it is assumed that people use the tools. Thus, a social media platform is mainly seen as a tool for knowledge sharing, and the value of such a tool is dependent on the perceived value of usage (Vuori & Okkonen, 2012, p. 601). These types of tools and mechanisms are perceived as resource-based attributes of organisational structural processes that support a positive social environment.

4.5.2.1

Individual and Collective Knowledge

The quote below illustrates participants’ description of knowledge individually and collectively in this organisation. Ownership of knowledge is an interesting insight into participants’ experience of learning and knowledge. Individual knowledge and team knowledge or collective knowledge is jointly discussed, as the support of the individual and collective is evident in the organisation. The members interviewed in this organisation believe that knowledge sharing connects communication with learning, and knowledge sharing is situated where communication overlaps with learning. M23: We have job assignments travelling overseas and we have (overseas) lecturers who are coming down to attend certain global lessons, to attend seminars, to get trained. They come here to gain experience and to learn, so yes.

Acquiring information, sharing, documenting the processes with understanding, creating and applying knowledge using technology is often spoken of in individual terms amongst organisational members and is treated as an organisational practice owned by the organisation. Below excerpt reveals that the participants primary involvement was how they used technology for managing knowledge and not what type of technology they used in this KM process. Knowledge integration is enhanced via team autonomy, dedication and diversity. In this example of team dedication, autonomy and diversity are crucial to knowledge. Participants’ discussions reveal the effect of KM structures influencing problem solving in the everyday work of meeting customer needs. M311:We have modules offered for support provided by some of the university partners. Then, it is through video conferencing… M221: Mentors from the School of [deleted] travel to [deleted], they are sharing knowledge … is encouraged. F215: I agree too.

Connected to a discussion of knowledge is some consideration of the knowledgeable. The term mentor is used with some frequency in discussions of the knowledge of the organisation. A discussion of the role of the mentor reveals some fascinating concepts around the nature of knowledge in a contemporary organisation, as this excerpt highlights.

4.5 Grounded Theory of Learning, Knowledge and Innovation

4.5.2.2

119

Organisational Knowledge

Hatch (2010) defines organisational knowledge as ‘When group knowledge from several subunits or groups is combined and used to create new knowledge, the resulting tacit and explicit knowledge can be called organisational knowledge’. In this quote, the participant speaks about organisational knowledge which is shared by team members both at a local level and from a distance, not being restricted within a specific department. Participants described a connection between the local and the organisational, as well as perceived knowledge that is developed or held at the team level to contribute to organisational knowledge. M31: We also share some examples of our teaching practices. We also share examples of handling students. We create some examples which are minute in the minutes. And they share such case studies with our (overseas) colleagues as well. And similarly, at (overseas), they also hold regular student/staff session meeting, staff meetings and such. Records of meetings are also sent to (local) for us to analyse, to help them in the areas where we can mentor and where we can guide them and share knowledge freely.

Excerpt above reveals that knowledge resides in individuals and groups and also exists at the organisational level. Participants’ constructions of knowledge are clearly linked to organisational capability. It is evident that best practices of individuals, teams and past success stories have been archived to reference future decisions and actions for the organisational members. This example below is a clear discussion that was initiated to clarify participants’ identification between the group and organisational level. In this example, the participant articulates the notion that organisational knowledge is something that is shared throughout the organisation. Participants did speak of attempts to share knowledge between offices. Communication mechanisms seem to offer scope for overcoming problems associated with distance and to increase efficiency through electronic modes of interaction to enable networking across time and locations. The sharing of tacit knowledge is vital for innovation and is best shared in co-location and face-to-face interactions in this organisation. F213: But one thing is when our lecturers would travel from Singapore to [deleted], then, comes this difference. We think we are better than them. And they think they are better than us. Then, there comes this ‘we/them attitude’, or it could also be between the university partners and the lecturers at our institute. But, we cannot deny that we are all learning and very willing to share. There is a synergized approach in giving and taking tips in teaching styles.

Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) define organisational knowledge as ‘the capability, which members of an organisation developed, to draw distinctions in the process of carrying out their work—in particular concrete contexts—by enacting sets of generalizations whose application depends on historically evolved collective understanding’ (p. 973). In this organisation, participants spoke about workarounds between departments and several sites. Is it merely when members perform work within organisational contexts and ‘generate, develop and transmit knowledge’

120

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

(Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001, p. 979) that personal knowledge becomes organisational. It became apparent that in this organisation, formal communications, colocation of staff members, the use of virtual communication mechanisms and staying connected at a distance highlight the important role of network relationships in enabling innovation collaboration, which contributes to organisational knowledge. M311: They make use of WebEx to communicate with our colleagues, with our lecturers in [deleted], teleconferencing or arranged – sometimes, I also have some Skype conversations with my lecturers in [deleted]. So lecturers from Singapore travel to [deleted].

Participants discussed the motivation (Osterloh & Frey, 2000) to share knowledge as crucial for fostering knowledge sharing, learning and innovation. The motivation to learn is an influential power that encourages participation in organisational contexts, and members’ motivation to share knowledge is apparent in the quote below. F13: Knowledge sharing worked well because of their competence, lecturers’ competence. They are – because they want to upkeep their professional integrity. They want to improve their skills and experience. So, that is always a positive intention.

In this organisation, what makes knowledge distinctly organisational is its codification in the form of propositional statements underlain by a set of collective understandings. Distinctions and generalizations are made as strategic and operational influences shape corporate understandings, and hence decision making in this organisation is shared both locally and with members working at a distance. Therefore, tacit knowledge shared and transformed as explicit knowledge in this organisation is accessible and can still be retrieved during any organisational change. The dialogues reflect technological competence that shapes the directions of the collaboration in knowledge creation and sharing in this organisation.

4.5.2.3

Knowledge Flow

Knowledge flow is discussed in the examples about the influence of individuals’ characteristics, such as motivation, enjoyment in helping others, knowledge selfefficacy, sharing solutions, organisational factors and management support, as well as technology factors, such as the use of information and communication technology on knowledge-sharing processes which lead to innovation capability. Knowledge flow is considered manageable around group values and hierarchy. F17: Staff when given the opportunity to travel to a dispersed location travel to [deleted], travels to the bigger campus and campus here in Singapore too University professors will visit Singapore to teach crash courses from their respective countries. During these visits, local lecturers, head of schools meet them formally for improving teaching, marking and moderating assessments. We also meet them informally outside campus for chatting about similar topics.

In the example above, the participant considers knowledge flow between the local campus and campuses in other locations. The local campus represents the boundary entity for knowledge holding, and in this case, it has connotations of directional

4.5 Grounded Theory of Learning, Knowledge and Innovation

121

Table 4.6 Summary of activities in each KM process in the organisation Knowledge acquisition

Knowledge sharing

Knowledge documentation

Knowledge creation

Knowledge application

Training Seminars Writing and accessing management journals Recruitment of new staff Informal acquisitions

Information technology Team teaching and learning Mentoring and coaching in co-location and distance Overseas university partnership alliances Problem-based sharing

Meeting minutes IT-aided documentation Handbooks Email correspondence Social engagement on forums

Intra-organisation job assignment Organisational projects Problem-solving activities

Teaching & learning Enhancing students’ learning experiences Staff development

Adapted from Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)—KM model

sharing on a vertical plane. The quote above illustrates that the knowledge flow between the collective and the organisation is transactional and highlights attempts to facilitate movement of knowledge across campuses at different sites. The summary of the KM process is portrayed in Table 4.6. The findings reveal that effective KM processes influence practical implementation of new practices through collaborative learning between individuals and team members with shared understanding in a geographically dispersed working environment. This form of learning activity, managing knowledge, and implementation of knowledge is often spoken of in individual terms amongst organisational members and is treated as an organisational practice owned by the organisation.

4.5.3 Innovation Innovation is primary in participants’ discussions and revealed that social interaction, knowledge integration and discovering new skills and new practices are enhanced via team autonomy, dedication and diversity. In this example, participants’ discussions reveal the interweaving of learning, knowledge and new practices and the influence of problem solving in the everyday work of meeting learner needs. M221: Mentors from the School of [deleted] travel to [deleted], they are sharing knowledge … is encouraged. F215: I agree too. When the mentee also learns new skills and new practices, this becomes like creating a win-win relationship between both.

122

4.5.3.1

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Individual and Collective Improvement

Participants’ discussion reveals that when localised knowledge is shared among individuals and team members in other subunits operating at a distant location, they can help to resolve any related problems and create new knowledge, which can reciprocate the organisation through socializing and collaborating. F17: Staff, when given the opportunity to travel to a dispersed location, travel to [deleted]; they travel to the bigger campus here in Singapore too. University professors will visit Singapore to teach crash courses from their respective countries. During these visits, local lecturers and heads of schools meet them formally to improve teaching standards, marking and moderating assessment.

These attempts at establishing intra-organisational networks are represented as roles and as channels for learning; implementing existing and new practices; and, for improving within regions and localities (Sanz-Valle, Naranjo-Valencia, JiménezJiménez, & Perez-Caballero, 2011). Whilst it appears that co-location of staff and proximity is important for innovative collaboration, the evidence suggests that networking extends well in a geographically dispersed work sites for improvement.

4.5.3.2

New Practices

Participants spoke about attaining new skills and how they apply in their daily work. Below excerpt reveals how participants apply their new skills for their professional growth. Existing practices are practically implemented in a geographically dispersed site allowing organisational member to adopt new skills. New skills provide the capacity to improve individuals and team members’ goals, add value and improve organisational performance. M222: While we travel to […] to teach, our lecturers are also learning newer skills. At any stage of a lecturer’s career, this knowledge sharing, this mentoring and training helps them to understand their career path and they are also able to navigate the route to their respective professional goals.

Furthermore, new skills allow organisational members to collaborate with a common understanding of goals and learning processes (Quintane, Casselman, Reiche, & Nylund, 2011). Participants discourse reveals the possibility internal opportunity for sharing knowledge, learning, and use its creative efforts in a geographically dispersed environment to apply their new skills.\

4.5.3.3

New Ideas

Participants spoke about connections between solutions and problems across geographical boundaries being made. Hargadon and Sutton (2000) argue that existing ideas often appear new and creative as they change from combining with other ideas to

4.5 Grounded Theory of Learning, Knowledge and Innovation

123

meet the needs of different users. The findings reveal that the members’ past decisions made in resolving certain problems were shared through electronic media, but knowledge is shared through extensive interaction between members in a network. Such networks were obvious through formal organisational meeting setups and informal collective relationships between individuals and teams within the organisation. M16: What is practiced and implemented in Singapore successfully is transferred to […] staff. We introduce best practices and encourage staff working on similar projects in Singapore or […]. This allows us for intra-organisational networking opportunities and also allowing staff for socialization.

In this study, participants spoke about KM initiatives that relied upon establishing a basic atmosphere of social learning, collaboration, trust, and sharing amongst the individual and the collective. Thus, establishing a culture of social learning spurs KM and innovation that results in process improvement. Social-related activities play an important role in the creation, development and cultivation of a space where learning, knowledge sharing and new practices occur. The following section presents the conclusion on interpretations of the theory constructed through participants’ sensemaking of terms and discussions.

4.6 Conclusions on Constructions of Knowledge, Learning and Innovation This section briefly introduced the meanings of learning, knowledge and innovation through participants’ sensemaking of terms. In addition, it also introduced the means in which the author provided definitions for participants’ use of specific terms. In this study, learning is constructed by participants as an active process of work commitment and team-building culture to improve results and organisational members’ KM activities and innovation capabilities in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. The KM processes are embraced in this localised environment as well as in distant locations and co-locations and exhibit individual and collective connections to share and solve problems. Members construct knowledge with trust, motivation and support through a collective network. Practical implementation of practices is part of a natural process of the participants’ interactions and innovation activities. Participants’ definition of learning, knowledge and innovation explains the ways in which themes and categories emerged from the analysis of the findings.

4.7 Overview of Emerging Categories Forming a Theory This section aims to reveal the sensemaking theory and innovation theory to illustrate their relevance to the experience of participants in this study. The methods in Chapter 4 discussed the development process of coding and categorisation as an

124

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

empirical approach (described in phase 5). The following sections of this chapter provide a description of categories and illustrations of the ways in which the details of data categorization are introduced.

4.7.1 Overview of Categories The categories are explored based on their ‘properties’ and ‘dimensions’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 117). Strauss and Corbin (1998) explain that ‘whereas properties are the general or specific characteristics or attributes of a category, dimensions represent the location of a property along a continuum or range’ (p. 117, underline in original). In other words, each category has characteristics that distinguish it from other categories, but each category also contains variations in these characteristics. Thus, each category potentially represents a phenomenon. Emergent categories from participant discourses and provided a structure for analysis of the data. The categories served to build theory and relate it to other theories of innovation management. Analysis in this organisation was undertaken to provide insights into learning knowledge and innovation through the application of innovation theory, as well as to provide new insights into the theory itself. The findings are explored through reference to several extant studies, and the characteristics and mechanisms of innovation are described as the theory is explored and developed through the findings. The author analysed the characteristics and mechanisms that enable the interrelationship and linked the themes of learning, knowledge, and innovation management infusion.

4.7.2 Characteristics and Mechanisms of Innovation Theory Murat and Baki (2011), Quintane et al. (2011), and Sanz-Valle et al. (2011) suggest characteristics for examining the innovation process, which is the basis for the emergence process of participants. In this study, the characteristics of innovation trigger the question: ‘What are the characteristics of organisational members’ experiences of learning, knowledge development and innovation?’ The mechanisms then prompt the question: ‘What are the mechanisms by which organisational members learn, develop organisational knowledge and implement innovation?’. This section presents the factors about social, architectural and cultural innovation that facilitate KM, individuals and team members’ learning and implementation of innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. This section further elaborates the characteristics and mechanisms related to the participants’ experiences of learning, KM and innovation established within innovation theory. Discussions on the findings that relate to social innovation are presented first, followed by explanations of the findings for architectural innovation and then cultural innovation. These factors surrounding the innovation concepts are introduced and presented separately

4.7 Overview of Emerging Categories Forming a Theory

125

in this chapter. However, the characteristics and mechanisms are presented, and work together in OL, KM, and innovation processes. Participants’ in vivo terms and categories used in the analysis are italicised throughout this introduction chapter and in later chapters.

4.7.2.1

Social Innovation

Taatila et al. (2006) put forward the notion that an innovative idea is produced by a social network which ‘concentrates’ the network’s knowledge through one or more central persons, known as ‘the innovators’ (p. 319). In the findings in this study, the organisational members’ discussions feature collaboration, with each individual being proactive, which results in group behaviour emerging from this interaction. The mechanism for forming knowledge is the sharing groups, according to the participants’ description of the experience. In this study, and in vivo terms, the concept of social innovation describes a team’s ability to be proactive and to achieve outcome. This cluster of themes reflects the experience of learning and the novelty that arises from interpersonal work relations and group (collective) behaviour. A related set of themes describe the ways in which organisational members identify with others by means of channelling the knowledge process and then by forming boundaries around a team, known as a collective. For participants, their interactivity results in eliciting the in vivo terms support, seeking knowledge in distance, local, and setting an example. The concept of social innovation was first recognised by the sensemaking group as a cluster of themes around the in vivo code, support, and the related outcome theme, effectiveness. Throughout the session, the group struggled with this concept. The concept intersected with the dynamic of the localised group and its properties and the ways in which group members interact, share across different sites, solve problems and develop knowledge as a collective. In this research, social innovation was exemplified through the interactive processes of individual agents as well as by their behaviour as a collective network. In this way, the discussions exposed the emergence of ‘new knowledge emergent from learning behaviours from group interactions’ (Quintane et al., 2011, p. 937). Social innovation comes from the reflection of groups as an interacting and connected collection of agents. It focuses interest on the outcomes of the dynamic group in broader, innovative and coherent learning and knowledge outcomes. The emergence of the category relationship was developed through the grouping of codes, for example, support, self-worth, self-reliance and passion. This category relates to the undirected gathering of individual members into team members and the ways in which the group works and individuals benefit from attachment. The second category under the social innovation concept, collective networks, grew from the gathering of themes around individual and collective attempts to change the organisation’s environment, process the problems encountered and innovate as an effective organisational member.

126

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Table 4.7 illustrates the properties from the coded data set highlighting three attributes of the supporting behaviours, such as sharing, trust, commitment and Table 4.7 Categories and properties of the concept ‘social innovation’ Category

Coded data Set

description

Literature supporting emergent categories

Collective Relationships

Support, self-motivated, self-confidence, self-reliance, self-worth, self-belief, passion and nurture

Commitment of organisational members for group learning and collaboration support by team members to develop performance within the environment

Pot and Vaas (2008), Haslam (2004), Hernes (2004), Heiskanen and Heiskanen (2011), Kickul, Griffiths, and Bacq (2010), Alguezaui and Filieri (2010)

Connection with others as a consequence of their support to people within the organisation Connection with others as a result of the importance they place on the work Collective Networks

Change, effectiveness, seeking knowledge, co-located, we are in distance, travel, local, valuing people and valuing the job

Influence on individual, collective or organisation as a consequence of collective behaviour. New and different effects’ resulting from a collective’s attempts to provide solutions to effectively solve problems at the team level Collectives’ connection based on co-location and a focus on localised problems and connection developed through seeking out knowledge that facilitates improvements in the fitness function

4.7 Overview of Emerging Categories Forming a Theory

127

honesty; passion behaviours, such as motivate and challenge; and nurturing behaviours relating to ownership. The concept of social innovation includes the categories collective relationships, which have the properties of support, passion, and nurture, and collective networks, which have the properties of change, effectiveness and innovation. Social innovation also reflects the function of gathering together themes. The themes are placed in the order in which organisational members connect with others to resolve issues in the geographically dispersed working environment, to increase collective networks, and to innovate for the organisation in supporting continuing change. This concept engenders discussion about how organisational members locate each other, what foci attract them to each other, how they create boundaries around their team members and how these team members develop collective relationships. This was an important concept in the findings. This provided participants an expression for discussion of the fuzzy distance theme. For participants, the collective networks category with the property of distance brought together themes about the impact of members’ perceptions of the work role. The themes covering the influence of members on the mode in which they learnt from others, shared knowledge and implemented new skills with others was identified. The prominent theme of local was also seen as important. Thus, the social innovation concept further draws attention to the focus on the structural competence attributes of an organisation that are needed to create innovation (Taatila et al., 2006).

4.7.2.2

Architectural Innovation

Architectural innovation is a core concept which brings together the importance of organisational characteristics and organisational structure. Both themes, organisational characteristics and organisational structure, were repeated in participants’ discussions. Organisational characteristics illustrate the learning experience, knowledge sharing, trust, positive risk, risk taking, performance monitoring and control, and implementation of practices. Organisational structure illustrates the responsibility of having commitment, passion, emotion, a connected environment and a direction towards all-round coherence. Therefore, in this study, architectural innovation connects and unites various properties into a tight grounded theory. The detailing of the grounded theory alongside with reference to extant literature related to organisational characteristics and organisational structures sets the scene for a more detailed explanation, their emergence and their importance. The author reflected back on the comment that inspired her thinking: F317: we could see that it was a passion, it was a commitment from individuals because they considered their profession. They do this with a moral interest, with a moral profession, as a group. As individuals, they also change. So, one person changes, it’s like influencing the rest. Rather than just working on myself. They understand that it should be a collective, collaborative effort.

128

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

M231: Yes, to act to this, we will see that – especially when lecturers or staff in […] and Singapore lecturers, when they travel to […] We are literally living inside the experience, like it is a real, rich experience. F27: They like whether there is success or whether there is failure in their job performance; lecturers like to share it. They like to share what they are doing, but very rarely like we can. They also see lecturers in order to maintain their position of importance. They tend not to share, but the leadership roles on programmes and modules are taken control of by full-time lecturers and full-time employees.

It dawned on the author that maybe the concepts of moral interest and moral profession were missing from the organisation. Maybe the participants in this study had been searching for an environment to satisfy their desires: an environment featuring organisational characteristics with passion, commitment as a group in an organisational structure to travel, to work in geographically dispersed sites living inside the experience to become ‘purposeful and professional’ (Lambert, 2003, p. 4). In experiencing learning, managing knowledge, and implementing practices through influencing the rest in a collaborative effort with their roles and position of importance achieving success in their job performance and in the organisational structure, they had found what they were searching for, and the author had found the core category. Furthermore, core category met Glaser’s (1978) characteristics of a core category, as it was central, recurred frequently, related to the other categories of this study and involved the participants’ main involvement and concern. Creation of meeting and sharing spaces (Alvarenga Neto, 2007; Balestrin et al., 2008; Lechner & Dowling, 2003) design of virtual and physical layout and workplaces environments (Von Krogh et al., 1997), promotion of regular knowledge conferences (Von Krogh et al., 2000), stimulus to social and informal gatherings, and empowerment (Bennett, 2001) are some examples of architectural innovation. The findings of this study revealed the emergent core categories organisational structure and organisational characteristics. Architectural innovation identifies a system of individuals, groups and organisations that communicate and interact with each other, characterised by cohesiveness, collaboration, cooperative goal setting and involvement in decision making in the related productive processes that drive them towards innovation, thereby transforming the team members and the organisation. They construct, exchange and share knowledge to enable organisations to operate more effectively and adaptively in the face of traditional structural hierarchical relationships that establish stability and rigidity. This process of interaction through communication in rigid organisations (Dougherty & Dunne, 2011) describes the fundamental characteristics of behaviour in traditional structural processes. Flexible and creative behaviours are related to each other and are caused by the process of interaction between individual elements and also between the individual and contextual elements that compose a system, whether this is through information exchange, learning and sharing, innovation and knowledge development, or limiting access. Participants described the influence of organisational characteristics on organisational structures, providing examples about the learning that occurs using the terms flexible, responsible, during travel and using resources in a connected environment. This facilitated the identification of solutions to individual problems. The mode and

4.7 Overview of Emerging Categories Forming a Theory

129

the channel they chose for managing the resulting knowledge and the practical implementation of new knowledge with organisational members outside of the collective was discussed. Flexibility and creativity in organizing was discussed across all directions at connection points among their heads and managers, as well as subordinates and peers in the organisational areas. The architectural innovation theme is an important characteristic of an organisation, and the properties of architectural innovation in this learning, KM, and innovation system relate to organisational structure and organisational characteristics and associated themes resulting from the connection between participants’ experiences in distance and co-location. This leads to the organisation’s need to monitor performance and measure performance and the assumption of flexibility. Table 4.8 presents the categories and properties of architectural innovation through participant discussions that relate to their experiences of learning, organisational knowledge development as well as to innovation within this PEI. Multi-dimensional knowledge structures (Leiponen & Helfat, 2010) are the major source of value creation in knowledge intensive organisations. Knowledge can be effectively utilised only by knowledge sharing through knowledge processes. Organisational structure is seen as the knowledge transmission paths and connections and various communication channels between campuses operating at different locations. The nature of psychological empowerment (Huang, Iun, & Liu, 2010) of members in the organisation and the ways for knowledge development and practical implementation of new practices through interaction are represented by themes in participants’ discussion about empowerment, structure and what we do. The characteristic architectural innovation represents participants’ experiences that relate to ‘flexibility and adaptability’ (Foo & McKiernan, 2007), as organisations that are adaptive generate closer interactions leading to the emergence of collective efforts that effect the innovation processes in the organisation and also provide access to knowledge or opportunities for innovation and learning. These are the points at which OL, KM, and innovation are facilitated. An organisational characteristic is an important category which illustrates the management of organisational members who travel to different sites located at a distance. Also, it highlights themes that gather around the impact of resources allocated to the organisation. Organisational communication processes, knowledge creation and shared knowledge are some examples of organisational structural competence attributes suggested by Taatila (2006). Organisational structure highlights processes which connect management of knowledge between sites located at a distance and in the community. From participants’ discussions, the findings reveal that they have set up structural processes that facilitate social interaction, development of knowledge and implementation of innovation and continue to discuss the human dimensions and the cognitive attitude (Manral, 2011) of their organisational members, which explains the interconnectedness of learning, knowledge and innovation in the PEI.

130

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Table 4.8 Categories and properties of the concept ‘architectural innovation’ Core category

Coded data set

Description

Literature supporting emergent categories

Organisational characteristics

Knowledge sharing, trust, positive risk, taking risk, monitoring performance, and control

Participants’ are allowed to innovate, make decisions to improve the effectiveness in organisational outcomes. Participants’ use a process which allows for the individuality of customer (student) and context needs

Alvarenga Neto (2007), Balestrin et al. (2008), Bennett (2001), Bozdogan, Deyst, Hoult and Lucas (1998), Hernes (2004), Heiskanen and Heiskanen (2011), Lechner and Dowling (2003), Von Krogh et al. (2000)

The organisation’s requirement for measuring and monitoring performance The exertion of control over process and outputs Patterns shared by organisational members with another site at a distance which produces a chain of changes which leads to ad hoc knowledge sharing The extent to which organisational members are encouraged to explore options and develop innovative solutions maintaining effectiveness Organisational structure

4.7.2.3

Responsibility of having commitment, passion, emotion, connected environment, direction towards all round coherence

The extent to which organisational members seek solutions to workplace problems, resulting in management of knowledge processes across the sites as a major source of value creation. Control over the behaviour and outcomes of organisational members through systematic evaluation

Cultural Innovation

Xu claims that organisations should proactively build a diverse social network at the start-up stage because it will positively affect their internal cognitive model of innovation (2011). Hernes (2004) suggests that social organisation becomes apparent through the processes of representing differences, with the aid of ‘mental boundaries’

4.7 Overview of Emerging Categories Forming a Theory

131

(p. 80) that relate to ideas, understandings and beliefs. The themes identified in participants’ discussion on social innovation and architectural innovation make up team structural processes and the ways in which resources and collective networks are used to share knowledge from one place (or format) to another (Dougherty & Dunne, 2011; Laihonen, 2006). The teams are constructed to influence the collective and its outcomes. Diversity emerged in participants’ discussions about the makeup of team members and the impact on organisational outcomes, and the emergent innovation concept is illustrated in Table 4.9. This was described in relation to the ‘nodal heterogeneity in the form of partner diversity’ that facilitates knowledgebased dynamic capabilities’ (Zheng, Zhang, Wu, & Du, 2011, p. 1041) of the group in its environment and in the innovative results it develops to improve effectiveness. Table 4.9 Categories and properties of the concept ‘cultural innovation’ Category

Coded data set

Description

Literature supporting emergent categories

Tacit values

Habits, enhanced skills, feedback, values and change

Different capabilities and backgrounds of team members create diversity and facilitate innovativeness

Heiskanen and Heiskanen (2011), Hernes (2004), Holland (1995), Mulej (2010), Sanz-Valle et al. (2011)

Organisational members adopt knowledge-sharing and KM processes as a way to formulate cognitive processes through seeking, giving and accepting feedback and to practice using them in real situations Organisational and staff developments and processes should be supported To adapt fresh ideas and practices Overt Values

Expectations, and new, tangible learning needs

The knowledge that members have acquired as a result of their experience of work do not restrict them to the limited confines of their department and the organisation that allows them to do what is right and across geographical boundaries for new ideas

132

4 Methods and Introduction to Findings

Participants’ discourse illustrates the range of individuals working in the organisation and the ways in which they fill niches within team members. The discourses also highlight the dynamic interaction of these diverse members and the impact of the context provided by other members to maintain the existing level of operations. In this case, practice is an in vivo code and a concept, and two themes relate to innovation and skills. Participants spoke about the ways in which individual and collective learning, knowledge and new skills are shared from one person and place to another. The receiver relates it to his or her own cognitive processes and creates his or her own interpretation of the original knowledge that he or she received to form new knowledge. This view also answers the difficult question: ‘Can knowledge really flow between different parties?’ (Laihonen, 2006, p. 129). As Stacey (2003b) claims, knowledge is understood to move through the interplay of individual, group, organisational, and social levels. In the participants’ own terms—we do, new—activities were influenced by set tacit values. Discourse that relates to dealing with work-related tasks, learning and expected appropriate behaviour is coded to this node. In many instances, the discussion coded to this node relates to accelerators of innovation and learning. Participants claim that the mechanisms adapted within individuals’ and team members’ cognitive processes encourage organisational members’ ability to collaborate, manage knowledge and implement new practices as a way to formulate development through seeking, giving and accepting feedback—and to do so in real situations where the organisation aims to meet the needs of a changing environment. Emergent innovation influences tacit and overt values, which are the two categories used for speeding up the process and for improving the quality of the process. In this study, the discussions reveal tacit values of individual and team cognitive processes through themes such as habits, values, seek feedback, accept feedback and give feedback—these are reflected in participants’ reflections on shifts in understandings and result in satisfaction of tangible learningneeds. The tacit values and overt values categories reflect clear similarities with Laihonen’s (2006) concepts, such as ‘modularity and standardizing’ (p. 135). Laihonen exemplifies that these concepts could be compared to data warehouse tools that help to develop organisational memory. In this way, they can be seen as a means of socially collaborating and utilizing previous knowledge in new situations. For this reason, tacit and overt values and a discussion of both categories and their implications for learning, KM and innovation processes are integrated in the analysis and discussion.

4.8 Conclusion This chapter introduces participants’ perceptions and constructions of learning, knowledge and innovation to structure the use of terms during analysis and discussion. This chapter lays out the concepts, categories and properties which are used in

4.8 Conclusion

133

the development of a new theory of innovation. The use of the participants’ discussion and interview quotes provide background for the presentation of findings in the following chapters. The emergent concepts of social innovation, architectural innovation and cultural innovation, their categories, and the coded data set (illustrating their properties and descriptors used to make sense of the findings) are introduced together with references to participant discussions and phrases. The following chapters develop each concept, depicting learning, knowledge and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed working environment in relation to the developing theory. The discussion follows Locke (2001), who suggests weaving together showing and telling to write data indicated theory and writing the literature into the grounded theory (e.g. Dick, 2005; Kennedy, 2006, 2010). Thus, the use of the participants’ discussion and interview excerpts throughout the analysis and discussion—together with the use of appropriate extant literature to situate this study—are presented in the following chapter.

Chapter 5

Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation, and Cultural Innovation

Abstract This chapter detail the research findings, which are analysed with particular attention on the perceived fit with the study’s conceptual framework. Each chapter presents features of the participants’ learning, KM and innovation experiences in terms of innovation concepts. The relationship between the OL, KM, and innovation of the organisation emerges in a single framework. This chapter establishes social, architectural and cultural innovation and highlight the notion that new and improvised OL, KM, and innovation practices among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation are consequences of these factors, characteristics and mechanisms. In this study, OL, KM, and innovation practices are perceived as collaborative learning, knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities for managing knowledge in a geographically dispersed environment which produces new solutions, novel ways to solve problems, processes to practice and adopt, and practical implementation of innovation in organisational practices.

5.1 Introduction This chapter shows how the categories are developed and detail the properties using participants’ discussion as illustrations. The experiences of participants in forming team members and the ways in which learning, knowledge and innovation emerges from their social interactions of the organisation in its context are further explained. Social interaction (Hansen, 2002; Reagans & McEvily, 2003), learning orientation (Crossan et al., 1999), management support (Vera & Crossan, 2004), empowerment (Alsop, Bertelsen, & Holland, 2005; Grinsven & Visser, 2011) and trust (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003) are identified as the traits influencing interaction with individuals and team members and characterizing the factors that facilitate learning, knowledge construction and implementation of new or existing practices in a geographically dispersed environment in this study. Social interaction strengthens intra-organisational relationships by integrating actors’ activities in KM processes and routines in the social context, which depicts any social entity, system or group of people who are involved in the innovation process or environmental factors affecting it (Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook, 2009). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0_5

135

136 Table 5.1 Social innovation concept: hierarchy of themes

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation … Social innovation

Collective relationships

Support

Social innovation

Collective relationships

Passion

Social innovation

Collective relationships

Nurture

Social innovation

Collective relationships

Commitment

Social innovation

Collective relationships

Change

Social innovation

Collective relationships

Effectiveness

Social innovation

Collective networks

Centrality

Social innovation

Collective networks

Distance

Social innovation

Collective networks

Knowledge seeking

Social innovation

Collective networks

Passionate about their job

Social innovation

Collective networks

Valuing people and valuing their job

This chapter presents the ways in which learning, knowledge and innovation activities and outcomes for the collective and organisation are fostered through organisational members’ interaction in a social space and emphasises the obvious relationships between them. Social relationships and interactions focusing on relationships show participants’ interest in nurturing interpersonal relationships and interactions derived from care, trust and a willingness to experiment, all of which make it possible to form a social environment conducive to learning, knowledge and innovation creation, sharing and use (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011). This study revealed important elements of these interactions through the grouping of codes of social behavioural conditions, as illustrated in Table 5.1. The groupings of participants’ social behavioural conditions in a socio-cultural environment where social learning, management of knowledge and innovation flourish are reflected in their discussions. The concept of social innovation is presented first with its categories of collective relationships. These categories are discussed in terms of their properties. The categories for collective networks are then illustrated through the data.

5.2 Social Innovation To me, I am very happy. I consider this as a professional integrity part of my job. And this helps me to determine my needs. It also builds support within the team (Participant M314).

5.2 Social Innovation

137

The concept of social innovation signifies the features that connect the reaction of teams to their environment, the characteristics and structure of those teams, and the effects of the collaboration. The more individuals work within the organisation through interactions, the richer the possibilities for breakthrough innovations (Hernandez-Espallardo et al., 2012). Social innovations are related to relationships and networks within and between social systems (Parra-Requena, Ruiz-Ortega & Garcia-Villaverde, 2013). The ways in which innovation is ‘unmanageable’ (McElroy, 2002, p. 34) involves multiple agents or departments and dynamic interactions combined in unique ways. Participants had strong support, passion and commitment to socially interact with other members in the organisation. M43: practices have made us feel there is a sense of belonging and they have made us learn how to use technology, how to share, what to share, and have given empowerment to a group as well as to individuals. Yes, I agree to this. True, to support this, I will also say that it has helped us to build self-reliance and knowledge of self-worth.

Social relationship is a frequent theme, and participants collectively agreed and discussed passion and commitment in length during coding. F19: We do have difficulties, but we also do the task with passion and with commitment. F224: You can clearly see that it is a collaborative effort with passion, commitment and carefulness. Of course they are very prudent in handling this.

The learning, knowledge and innovation in the organisation are surrounded by the participants’ constructed meaning. The head of the school went on to provide a number of examples of ways in which he and his colleagues learn from interaction with their natural world. He also discussed their ability to manage consistent exploring, sharing, accessing, anchoring and distributing new knowledge creation and exploitation. Valuing localised learning within the social environment was evident from the author’s point of view. M216: Sure, I agree. It is like a two-way learning process, like as a department head, as a head of school. I do share the vision of the department as a vision of the organisation, of our institute, build a team working culture and creating innovativeness in teaching and learning skills. M310: And also, my lecturers, I can see that they have problem solving skills. We work and trust and communicate more. Therefore, to answer your questions, do I turn knowledge or advice to solve issues? Yes, it is teamwork. It is a collaborative work, so we transfer knowledge. We also share knowledge.

Participants’ discussions indicate their focus on the local group level, and their belonging extended to an organisation that is geographically dispersed at a wider boundary. F16: So, in our institute or in our department in our school, we can very clearly see that we work like an extended family and we are able to share a lot. M14: So, basically our style is when we look across different schools, it could be the school of … our style of managing our programmes, managing a team of lecturers is that we work as a team, we participate in team and we agree. We arrive at what concerns us easily by sharing knowledge.

138

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

Participants discussed their social identity (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006) process, which is how members perceive their belonging to the organisation as well as their individual understandings of the organisation. It was apparent in the excerpt below that depending on the social identities, members develop affective (Roccas & Brewer, 2002), emotional (Smith, Pruyn & van-Riel, 2001) or cognitive (Illia, 2010) attachments to the organisation. F12: So, it makes our staff feel … that, they are part of the organisation and our family.

The social identity approach to organisations incorporates self-categorisation theory and urges the author to study what, how, when, and why individuals define themselves in terms of their group memberships and how these memberships consequently affect the behaviour of employees within organisations (Haslam, 2004). In this study, it is apparent that the social relationships emerge from interactivity as a natural outcome of the interaction of members rather than from any attempt on their behalf to choose or seek order (Jacobs, 2013). M29: SMS’ so my […] colleagues can interact with me or use their facebook. M35: We also share some examples of our teaching practices. We also share examples of handling students … And they share such case … with our […] colleagues as well.

Jacobs (1961) coined the term social capital to stress the centrality of strong and inter-personal relationships in communities. Social relationships are more and more being considered as important intangible assets for organisations. Burt (2000) states that social capital is a process in which ‘people who do better are somehow better connected’ (p. 32). Participants spoke about how organisational members interact with their network partners who receive greater access to knowledge resources with the same knowledge. The knowledge gained through such interactions, with a collective network acting as a bridge, is fresh and innovative. M42: We share our teaching practices. we share the difficulties and the fun part of managing our students compared to our own campus students as well.

This section dealt with the dynamics within the collective and its outcomes, while the below Fig. 5.1 illustrates the category and the coded data set. The following section discusses the ways that organisational members connect with others to form team members.

5.2.1 Social Innovation: Collective Relationships Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1996) use the concept of the structural dimension ‘of social capital to refer to the overall pattern of connections between actor—that is, who you reach and how you reach them’. McElroy (2002) describes the patterns of social innovation capital as a ‘collection of independent learners and communities of practice who collaborate with one another in natural ways to develop and integrate shared

5.2 Social Innovation

139

Fig. 5.1 Social innovation categories and coded data set

knowledge’ (p. 33). The excerpt below reveals the learning, knowledge development, and exploitation of existing work experience of the collective. M36: And when we are involved in any projects, we are also formed in the matrix groups and we also share knowledge across different schools, different departments. F34: I also provide a cross-school support by travelling. We stay in the same location. We are co-located in the same place.

The co-attraction of independent learners, the knowledge making and implementing skills and practices is a noticeable behaviour of members in the excerpts below. Participants discussed their experiences in regards to who comes together to interact, share, transfer knowledge, solve a problem, and implementing practices develop along their own path. M219: They are able build close working relationship and especially those who travel to […], they are co-located. F214: They stay in the place for about two weeks. It could be for one month. It could be for four months. They build a better working relationship

McElroy, Jorna and Van Engelen (2006) say that ‘social capital consists of knowledge and organisational resources that enhance the potential for individual and collective action in human social systems’ (p. 125). The detailed discussions concerning the question ‘How does social capital contribute to making individual and collective action possible?’ (McElroy et al., 2006, p. 125) are presented alongside the participants’ quotes in the following sections.

140

5.2.1.1

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

Social Innovation: Collective Relationships—Support

Support is a significant feature of developing and managing knowledge within the collective for many participants. Discussions were about individuals’ dependence on the team, when attempting to learn new understandings, solve problems within the organisation, and interact with students as their customers. Support is often described in terms of their association with other members, the variety of information available in those interactions and the availability of the connections in their dealings. M13: Thus, we can also see that our leaders, our council members, they also make specific and significant impact on our teaching and learning success. So, they focus on speed. They focus on flexibility, professional integrity and innovation as well. Okay. So, we can see the positive effects while attending such meetings, we’ll learn. M211: We share our knowledge. We also get to – we also see that the knowledge is transferred from our council members from our leaders on the organisational performance and can see positive effects on the performance and the outcomes as well.

In the excerpt above, the organisational members refer to their positional leaders in the organisation, within the collective where they are seen, as supporting members. This reference to adequate support for an individual’s pursuit of formal learning, execution of practices and achievement of results highlights the notion that there are few positional leaders sitting outside the collective supporting opportunities for members to learn. The local group extends their support voluntarily for organisational members, in relation to interactions, associations and access to other members.

5.2.1.2

Social Innovation: Collective Relationships—Passion

Some participants shared their experiences about the ability of the collective and its individual members to motivate and become passionate, rather than simply support other members towards shared goals. Participants described team members’ learning from others through supported learning and sharing, and going beyond boundaries for their personal and professional development. The ability to learn through participants’ work and the generosity of knowledge sharing in the local collective is evident in the excerpt below. The local collective in the network is more central as compared to team members located at a distance. The local team members are directly related to other networks, such as the university partners, and act as bridges which have greater potential access to external knowledge resources and execute implementation of practices in a geographically dispersed environment. F34: We do not have to travel to […] But we are heavily engaging in directing with the university, Colleagues University, Partners University, professors. So my lecturers will have to regularly communicate with the university partners through video conferencing, through telephone conversations, through this model support so we can stay apart. We can be dispersed in two different locations. We can be away from, but there is knowledge sharing in spite of time differences, of course. M25: Knowledge sharing worked well because of their competence, lecturers’ competence. They are – because they want to upkeep their professional integrity. They want to improve

5.2 Social Innovation

141

their skills and experience. So, that is always a positive intention like me as a head of school and Yes, I am a lecturer as well.

The encouragement given by the team members for development through work is evident in the example above. It seems members of the collective interact to reach outside their four walls, and the goals and objectives that they are trying to achieve become clearer, more permeable, and more shaped and influenced by their university partners. M42: And these university partners when they come down for examination boards, they also provide valuable feedback for us to work on. So yes, it worked well for all the schools that I can see. Are they co-located? Are they in a dispersed location? Are they travelling between centres? It worked well. Knowledge sharing really worked well.

It is clear that innovation is open and that members learn directly from their environment and through the positive or negative feedback of their interactions. Distribution of knowledge occurs where team members develop new knowledge, overlap exchanging, learning, and putting into practice. M19: All the lecturers are a great asset to any of the leaders in the company because they have the interest to develop them to their fullest potential, which we also see now as leaders. M313: So, since this is executed well, this mentoring programme, we find that it is a very effective method and it helps to enhance the professional growth of our company, of our lecturers, too.

Passion was a term used to describe the localised team members’ role in supporting, KM, problem-solving, and carrying out processes that contributed to a member’s learning, knowledge development and for achieving results causing the borders between parties becoming blurred. F19: So we use different knowledge sharing mechanisms, we use different procedures to comply with these regulations. But while doing this, we do have difficulties, but we also do the task with passion and with commitment. F218: There will be cultural differences when engaging with different staff, but that is also very good to have a sharing session as well, as it’s a good learning process. M229: I have the passion for deep learning, so I tried to come out from my comfort zone, from my regular habits and ideas. So, out of passion, this helps me to connect to learn new things. So, this is the moral purpose, the passion for learning new things which is where I’m emotionally bonded. So, the moral purpose makes me want to know more and do more. F224: You can clearly see that it is a collaborative effort with passion, with commitment, and with carefulness. Of course they are very prudent in handling this.

5.2.1.3

Social Innovation: Collective Relationships—Nurturing

While the local collective is shown to members to support and with passion, they also develop the collective from other levels of the organisation and in the environment. There is a sense of ownership over individual and collective outcomes, and members of the collective share their learning; they influence the management of the knowledge that is developed at the local level; and practically implement practices. This sense of

142

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

ownership encourages members to nurture their team members to achieve common goals. M43: Also, we can say that these knowledge sharing practices have made us feel there is a sense of belonging and it has made us learn how to use technology, how to share, what to share, and it has given empowerment to a group as well as to the individual. Yes, I agree to this. True, to support this, I will also say that it has helped us to build self-reliance and knowledge of self-worth.

Individual members expressed happiness with empowerment, control and the recognition of the work they do at local and intra-organisational levels. Members in dispersed locations believe in thinking on a collective level. The excerpts reveal members’ emotional ties to their learning and ideas at the intra-organisational level. They also reveal how locally developed knowledge and knowledge developed at a distance are owned and practically executed on the collective level. A good feeling of empowerment arising from recognition of collective outcomes is clear. Participants’ discussions of nurturing also centred on trust within the localised and distant collective. F35: Leadership orientations: we as department heads significantly influence & contribute directly to lecturer commitment to students. I agree & as a head of school I instil strong beliefs and commitment among the lecturers to move forward in transforming the education. Lecturers are central and hold various important responsibilities. We build trust by talking to them and sharing with them in informal manners and formal meetings too. I empower my staff with key responsibilities in key projects.

Participants perceive trust as an attribute of collective behaviour. They also describe this trust being motivating outside of the collective, especially through a sense of belonging and support of collective outcomes. Trust towards the group is developed as M43 found when he gathered some understanding of the knowledge being developed in the organisation, which helped him to build self-worth. In discussing trust, M43 notes the opportunity for developing knowledge and executing practices. It is evident that the interpersonal trust amongst the collaborated organisational members is a central characteristic of the relationships that promote effective knowledge construction and in practical enactment in the collective. Participants trust that members have sufficient expertise to offer solutions and handle tasks. Competence-based trust allows members to feel confident that the subject matter is worth learning, developing knowledge and for putting into practice. M43: This is the ‘wish’. We have this passion. We have this commitment in knowledge sharing and we trust. We wish for trust. We wish for self-belief and belief in others as well. We want to be part of the community. We want to feel the sense of belonging to the community and able to support each other.

In response to ownership of ideas initiated at the collective level and their trust of organisational members’ actions, behaviours and tasks undertaken that concur with their experience, organisational members share their experience with team members as they develop in solving problems in the geographically dispersed working environment.

5.2 Social Innovation

143

F24: I understand my staff personalities & they are aware of my personality. I trust my staff and treat them all fairly. In this manner, staff & lecturers take responsibility and support one another. They share experiences and learn from mistakes as well as successes. Good ideas are heard, and acted on.

It is evident in this excerpt that knowledge is shaped by processes of discussions and negotiations, where knowledge and trust are interwoven. Trust incurs initiation, and it is clear that trust is themed as work process and contact, and talking in formal meetings is emphasised in the trust-building process in this study. F35 and F24, as heads of schools, clearly reflect giving up the idea of controlling their organisational members. Thus, the organisational members collaborate, develop knowledge and act on good ideas which exert effects on the results. This excerpt below illustrates the collective’s behaviour and belief in their members’ experience to handle organisational problems and develop new knowledge in an intra-organisational environment. F224: Similarly, once these staff in [deleted] are trained, they take up ownership. They are too passionate about their job. They love doing their job. They are committed in doing their job. So they take up the responsibility with passion. They take up these leadership roles to further train their local lecturers there. This activity or this knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking behaviour are inculcated in our culture, in our institute’s culture.

The appreciation of the importance of knowledge development, carrying out practices at the individual, collective and across boundaries reflects itself in overt social interactivity and learning behaviour. The participants’ experience of working on projects at the local level and at the intra-organisational level emphasise encouragement about voluntarily organising, constructing knowledge and executing practices outside of the local collective. M16: What is practiced and implemented in Singapore is successfully transferred to [deleted] practices and encourages staff working on similar projects in Singapore or [overseas]. This allows us for intra-organisational networking opportunities and also allows for staff socialization of tacit knowledge.

Ownership, trust, self-reliance and sense of worth themes relate directly to the collective’s willingness to self-organise, interact, share, and putting developed knowledge into practice in a geographically dispersed environment. These themes show the potential for learning, knowledge distribution that influences the organisation’s knowledge retrieval capabilities, and carrying out practices which exist implicitly between individuals and team members at the intra-organisational level.

5.2.1.4

Social Innovation: Collective Relationships—Commitment

The grouping of themes around individual and collective attempts to make culture work in the organisation’s environment, to make a positive difference to problems encountered and to develop people as effective organisational members. Participants

144

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

told of their commitment to increase their fitness within their dynamic environment, through learningin context and interaction with team members. They are aware, too, that their ability to succeed within their collective environment is dependent on the behaviour of other members. Author: Do you turn for … advice to solve issues in your work? What type of advice would you normally seek? M16: Yes, it is not always a smooth sailing ride because we do face problems. We have different types of students who – we have this Gen-Y. We have baby boomers, part-time students. We have Gen-X students. F39: Even managing the Gen-Y type students is a challenge and contrary like part-time students will come that rich experience, but with poor academic skills. So, that will be who are basically baby boomers and Generation X. M39: Managing students and managing lecturers to deal with different type of students, the teaching skills required to handle different types of students. F211: The management style required is teamwork consensus and participation, and we have this. We learn through the teaching and learning practices as well. Hence, there is a positive relationship of knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer. M17: Yes, as I transfer my experience, as I transfer my knowledge to my staff, I also, at the same time, learn skills from my staff because I also manage different generations so I do get advice. I seek knowledge from my staff as well. M216: Sure, I agree. It is like a two-way learning process, like as a department head and as a head of school I share the vision of the department as a vision of the organisation, of our institute, develop a team working culture and create innovativeness in teaching and learning skills.

Examples of social learning, interaction, embedded knowledge among team members, and practical implementation of skills within the organisational environment by members are offered most frequently through teamwork. The author asked for clarification, and M216 in the above excerpt highlighted teamwork as central to innovations designed at the individual and collective level in terms of dealing with problems to maintain effectiveness and for carrying out practices in their everyday working environment. It is evident in the excerpt below that the heads of schools and leaders recognise abilities in their team members and encourage full team participation in working through the innovation process. They act as collaborators who truly value their team over the individual. They entice organisational members out of their work silos to form multidisciplinary teams and work at the collective level. In doing so, participants in this role dissolve traditional boundaries within the organisation and create opportunities for team members to assume new roles. More of a coach than a boss, a collaborator instils their organisational members and team with the confidence and skills needed to complete the shared goal and objectives. M35: The change is embedded top-down as we share the same with our staff too. This is achieved by monitoring staff performance, progress, changing the appraisal and reward systems, and hiring staff with a commitment to empowerment and collaboration.

5.2 Social Innovation

145

Participants are well aware of the value of the knowledge that emerges through social collaboration as a result of dealing with this engagement in developing teamwork. Innovativeness and innovation is highlighted in this category as a significant basis of valued knowledge and for putting into practice for organisational members.

5.2.1.5

Social Innovation: Collective Relationships—Change

Participants describe change taking place as a result of interactions between individual agents and between individuals and team members within their environment. Participants discussed how agents create awareness and offer practical help to staff to learn changed procedures, which occur everywhere in the work environment. M317: We develop it and we work with others so it was a joy of leadership that I should also say. So me, as a head of school, I could feel it is from the heart that you feel joy, you all felt self-satisfied, you are energized, and it is engaging. It is getting to be engaged and connecting with others. So, this makes us happy to see, so it is breaking any traditional rules. This is in the change process that all of us are going through as a team. M115: Most importantly, if I have to share in my department, for example, the outcome of students, it’s the achievement of students when they are learning. Like, for example, you can see that in empowered teachers: when we give them more power, decision-making powers. Then we learn from each of those, they are less-dependent, how they engage with students. So, the growth and leadership and confidence can be seen amongst their colleagues as well. With confidence, growth in the colleagues can be seen clearly. M317’s quote – So, this makes us happy to see, so it is breaking any traditional rules. This is in the change process that all of us are going through as a team – seems related to intellectual stimulation, which increases employees’ awareness of problems and stimulates them to rethink old ways of doing things.

It is evident that the collective enjoys change in the geographically dispersed working environment and these individuals and team members recognise the fact that change happens in the organisation as an outcome of its members’ behaviour. The team members demonstrate application-oriented behaviour in the implementation of innovation processes in dealing with students. Innovative behaviour is obvious in the team members. F223: Empowering others needs to start even higher at the senior management level with less bureaucracy and less control of schools. So, this is what we need to learn: contribute to a change of how we would learn to help us to change the complete learning process. It’s like: ‘I believe that I have to change myself before influencing even my staff’. So, action learning is one thing that I have been looking to then changing myself working with other leaders, working with my other department heads, heads of schools and developing students to be new change leaders. This is one thing that I will really, really have to work at.

From this excerpt, it is evident that the agents like a challenge for changes at work. Collaboration is evident, and these people thrive for change. The innovative behaviour of team members and the role that leaders play in enabling and enhancing such behaviour is obvious. M25: Lecturers’ commitment is closely connected to their work performance and their ability to innovate and integrate new ideas into their own practice, as well as having an important

146

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

influence on students’ achievement in, and attitudes toward, school So, we create a conducive environment, so that they can be committed to the organisation, create a sense of community, affiliation, and personal caring among adults within the schools, and allow them to facilitate integration between personal and work life.

Extensive delegation by the agents to organisational members was evident. Participants provide subordinates with sufficient autonomy to ensure high-quality work results. One responding manager (F223) even spontaneously connected delegation to innovative behaviour and willingness to change: It’s like I believe that I have to change myself before influencing even my staff. Participants anchored the innovative activities in their organisation by providing their team members with a sense of direction and overarching goals. Providing an overarching vision was believed to enhance both idea generation and application behaviour. This is evident in F221’s quote: ‘…moral purpose of my leaders that they influence on me is we need to have a sense of community on global society to understand and to appreciate human values. It’s beyond students and their parents. And be valued. Education is not just merely curriculum but it is for a shared good, for a common good and to honour diversity, especially in Singapore with a multiracial community. With students flooding from different countries, we honour diversity and equity as well’. Similar application behaviour was evident in F314’s discussion: ‘We have and this can be achieved by very good teachers, by students we have very good engaged students. And we all love doing this job, we have passion for doing this job, and we are committed in doing this job’.

5.2.1.6

Social Innovation: Collective Relationships—Effectiveness

Participants’ discussions reveal a commitment by organisational members to effectively meet the expectations of their clients and their environment. Effectiveness and commitment are terms used commonly in their discourse of learning and knowledge—a term most often used in reference to the commitment of clients encountered at the collective level and the everyday work of organisational members. F16: Our leaders articulate their vision in a clear and appealing manner, they explain how to attain the vision, lead by example and empower us to achieve the vision.

Yes, I agree that our leaders promote new possibilities and generate compelling vision of the future. They are the source of inspiration and visibly model appropriate behaviours. Their goal is change and their energy, enthusiasm and vision open up new and exciting possibilities within our institute. M36: I agree too, that our supervisors and bosses require us to take risks, think creatively and courageously, be decisive and communicate the vision of where we are progressing ahead and how we are going to get there. This approach is all about change.

Personal competence in sharing, developing work-related practices and knowledge, transferring knowledge and experience, and solving problems is often described

5.2 Social Innovation

147

as more important to organisational members in their job context, as this example from a participant working in headquarters illustrates. These participants reflected that unity between their personal need for effectiveness in reacting to the environment is encouraged by their keenness for learning and executing the learnt skills within the organisation’s framework. M17: Yes, as I transfer my experience, as I transfer my knowledge to my staff, I also at the same time learn skills from my staff because I also manage different generations of staff, so I do get advice. I seek knowledge from my staff as well. M216: Sure, I agree. It’s like a two-way learning process.

For these two participants, M210 and M35, their attempts to increase excellence within the organisational context are linked to the individual and collective’s behaviour and with the chance to learn from one another. M210: They come here to gain experience and learning. M35: We also Share some examples of our teaching practices. We also share examples of handling students.

The enthusiasm plays itself out in a continuing interaction between team members in the organisation and participants describing interaction at an individual and collective level between local and distant sites. Sharing at the local level means to engage in an effective relationship with colleagues of the changing environment. Effective relationships in the geographically dispersed working environment are evident as confidence in team members is gained and maintained through the demonstration of competent work practices. The performance of effectiveness is positioned with the team members’ behaviour to develop relationships, maintain their skills base and knowledge, and provide identifiable benefits for the organisation for these participants. Thus, members described their learning opportunities to develop this capacity at the individual and collective level. Effectiveness, for these participants, was centred on achieving the needs of a work environment in a collective. Learning occurred as a result of this pursuit of effectiveness in interacting with team members, and this knowledge provided appropriate opportunities for transferring and reverse-transferring within the individual and collective level.

5.2.1.7

Social Innovation: Collective Relationships—Innovativeness

Innovativeness is another important property of participants’ discussions about learning, knowledge development, and putting learnt skills into practice in the pursuit of increased fitness. Participants’ discussions revealed that the key determinant of innovation focuses on learning, construction of knowledge and practical implementation of practices in this organisation. The problems of the organisation bridge knowledge boundaries in innovation processes when they locate their innovation activities at sites located at a distance. Organisational members try to learn from each other across national borders, with the attempt to develop understanding of knowledge

148

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

boundaries across time and distance. Innovation is an outcome of members’ knowledge creation and dissemination through emergent behaviour in learning, solving problems, and exploring the challenges behind the organisation’s efforts. Crossing knowledge boundaries is linked to a two-way learning process (M216) between local and distant team members that generates innovation. Participants play a valuable role in the innovation process by demonstrating application-oriented behaviour, and organisational members reflect strong individual commitments to achieving goals and objectives, and they are able to persuade others of its value. Organisational members generate ideas by interacting, sharing and transferring knowledge at the collective level located at a distance, by engaging in behaviours to explore opportunities at the intra-organisational level, and by producing solutions for problems in dealing with students. F317: We could see that it was passion; it was a commitment from individuals because they considered their profession. They do this with a moral interest, with a moral profession, and as a group. As individuals, they also change. So, one person changes and it’s like influencing the rest. Rather than just working on myself. They understand that it should be a collective, collaborative effort. F213: knowledge sharing or sharing of practices is not an issue because we have very good team bonding. But one thing is: when our lecturers would from Singapore to [deleted], then, comes this difference. We think we are better than them. And they think they are better than us. Then, there comes this ‘we/them’ attitude or, it could also be between the university partners and the lecturers at our institute. But, we cannot deny that we are all learning and very willing to share. There is a synergized approach in giving and taking tips in teaching styles. What we see here is such unsettling processes provide us a pathway and direction towards all-round coherence.

For many participants, innovation is driven by efforts to promote knowledge flow within the environment in a conscious way for reuse—making it new in a different situation makes it useful—and is associated with continuous learning despite their location. In practice, knowledge is invested in this organisation across boundaries. Apart from learning and creating new knowledge, participants also learnt to transform the current knowledge in use and make it useful. It was obvious in F213’s discussion above that a focus on the generation of new knowledge is an outcome of learning through work. Members’ ‘absorptive capacity’ is obvious in recognizing the value of new information, assimilating it and applying it to meeting their needs (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990, p. 128). It is evident from F213 that motivation and the willingness of team members to collaborate, construct knowledge and disseminate the embedded knowledge constructed through social interaction, it plays important roles in the success of practical execution in the innovation process. Innovative role modelling is evident from F315’s quote: I am able to influence these characteristics as I learn from my leaders. Kong, Jenkins and Ardagh (2009) state that innovative role modelling may stimulate both idea generation and application behaviour. F212: I have something to share about teaching and learning practices. This could be on an informal mode. It could be over a coffee session or a coffee break session, or it could be a lecturer/staff room chatting session.

5.2 Social Innovation

149

Several participants believed that stimulating the dissemination of information and their experiences among subordinates enhances idea generation. They sometimes arranged informal meetings solely for the sake of knowledge distribution. It is evident that the knowledge boundary required the champion implementers to be active knowledge brokers among team members. M217: But on top of this, we also have some formal mechanisms for sharing knowledge. So, knowledge sharing mechanisms would be like we have this blackboard facility. M311: We have modules offered to support individuals that are provided by some of the university partners. Then, it is through video conferencing. They make use of WebEx to communicate with our colleagues, with our lecturers in [deleted], teleconferencing or arranged – sometimes, I also have some Skype chats with my lecturers in [deleted]. So, lecturers from Singapore travel to [deleted]. F310: Some of the official discussions are through our blackboard and Moodle. Since this is a distance education, we use both learning facilities through our blackboard, but we have certain university programmes. M218: These university programmes mean that university professors and lecturers also communicate and provide some staff development activities, teaching and learning practices. They share it with us through their Moodle. F315: And what we believe is or what I believe is to remain true to the professional standards and moral integrity. This is very important for me, and this is what I also expect my staff and I also influence them to stand-up for: change and to be stronger and more certain with this proactiveness. So, it is rather than just doing, it is just we’ll lead, leading them to a comfort zone. And proactiveness, though I can’t expect from all, but as a role model I try to be proactive. I am a bit courageous. So, it is my own efficacy, so I am able to influence these characteristics as I learn from my leaders, to my team.

It is evident from M217, M311, F310, M218 and F315 participants’ discourses that while innovation increasingly depends on the incorporation of knowledge generated by a diversity of sources from organisational members, the capability of developing innovation places strong emphasis on the channels and mechanisms for extensive and effective learning, KM and practical implementation across individuals and team members in the dispersed geographical boundaries. Initially, using various mechanisms to construct, seek and transfer knowledge may not be seen as ‘something novel’ or new. However, the organisational members in this study adopted a myriad of mechanisms enabling social interaction that resulted in relations of a more ‘predictable nature’ (Hernes, 2004, p. 71), with members emphasizing the importance of passion, trust and loyalty. As a result, the changes that occur between individuals and team members facilitating practical execution of processes in a geographically dispersed working environment reveal examples of something new and stimulate new ideas. New communication media and channels can be seen both as new practice implemented encouraging social interaction and as products to cross a geographical boundary. They interfere with institutionalised working and problem-solving and knowledge-sharing processes; in so doing, they change academics’ everyday work and team members’ engagement in the learning processes. However, it should be acknowledged that innovation ought to be seen in a further context, in that it happens at the boundaries between different people, with different backgrounds, perspectives and competencies. This will be discussed later

150

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

in the cultural innovation chapter, which may uncover yet unrealised phenomena and contribute to examining the relevance of ways of crossing different knowledge boundaries. Participants spoke about their willingness to absorb incoming knowledge from a distance from other team members willing to interact, develop collaborative learning environment and executing the processes. F26: All of can see that overall culture is sharing of knowledge, which comes from different communication climates that we already see. F16: So, in our institute or in our department in our school, we can very clearly see that we work like an extended family and we are able to share a lot. F27: Lecturers like to share. They like to share what they are doing.

The geographic distance in the organisation presents challenges for managing social distance between organisational members. The challenge is to create a platform to ensure shared understanding across individuals and team members. Thus, the organisation suggests that there is a vital role for the individuals and team members, who are knowledge experts and the technology agents that create new sources of information, and expand the need for new knowledge input and putting the new knowledge into practice. M38: also our staff prior to travelling to […], we have induction training, briefing session, teaching and knowledge sharing sessions and while these lecturers had the module, had the program, travelling to […] they will be in charge of team of lecturers while teaching in […] and this also helps them to develop their management skills as well while they are in overseas location. M311: They make use of WebEx to communicate with our colleagues, with our lecturers in […] teleconferencing or arranged – sometimes, I also have some Skype chat with my lecturers in.

The organisational members used several methods to support individual as well as collective creativity and willingly participated in developing these methods at the collective level. From participants’ discourses, it is evident that when the organisational members jointly reflected on collective learning and problem-solving efforts, they often had a good understanding of the situation, and they understand that other members have possible suitable ideas and experiences to contribute too. It is evident from these participants’ discussions that the locus of creativity in the interaction shifts to the collective level, with each individual contribution not only providing form to the subsequent role and responsibility of others but also providing meaning to others’ past contributions. Participant discussions revealed that learning from the experience of others occurs at the individual and collective level. Various schools and their members learn from one another, emphasizing the significance of social relationships for learning from the experience of team members in collaboration. Relational channels and non-relational channels, such as formal training programmes, and social interactivity contributed to new knowledge development processes. Social learning activity allowed individuals

5.2 Social Innovation

151

and team members in carrying out practices between members located in geographically dispersed sites in this study. The members gained experience within their organisation from a distance, but not from their competitors (Argote & Darr, 2000). Therefore, the participant discussions in this study make it obvious that being embedded in a social relationship, affects knowledge development and transfer (Szulanski, 1996) and results in practically implementing new processes in a geographically dispersed environment.

5.2.2 Social Innovation: Collective Networks M317: We could feel it is from the heart that you feel joy, you all felt self-satisfied, you are energized, and it is engaging. It is getting to be engaged and connecting with others.

De Nooy, Mrvar and Batagelj (2005) and Hakansson and Ford (2002) defined a network in its most fundamental way as representing a set of actors linked by a set of social relationships, whereby relationship contents vary in scope and depth. In the below excerpt participant spoke about individuals and team members who collaborated for social interaction, managing knowledge and implementing practices while being co-located and members who travelled across working sites. F34: We can be dispersed in two different locations. We can be away from, but there is knowledge sharing in spite of time differences, of course. I also provide cross-school support by travelling. We stay in the same location. We are co-located in the same place. Though we are at a distance, knowledge sharing does take place. M210: We have […] lecturers who are coming down. They come here to gain experience and learning purposes.

Leonard-Barton (1995) says that innovations happen at the boundaries between discipline and specialization. Because members foster interaction, they are important agents in setting up teams for specialization, collaboration and, eventually, in structuring collaborative teams. The participant M215 quote below reveals that members with similar and different skills belonging to various schools or departments pool together, develop knowledge, and carry out new practices in their everyday work. M215: The IT lecturer is able to teach how to use quantitative SPSS/RUMM software. He is able to teach business information systems. So, you can see that this cross-faculty support base is based on skills and competence and they are also able to share knowledge, gain and seek knowledge, different practices. And eventually, as they gain their skills, they are able to develop newer skills, newer competence, innovative, creative way of teaching, creative way of strategizing.

Participants talked about members in relation to team members, and their discussions reveal the characteristics of members that they select when forming teams for social interaction, acquiring new skills and putting new competences into practices on a collective level. Overwhelmingly, agents are identified by distance – agents with intra-organisational knowledge, distance experience, and who are accessible both

152

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

locally and at a distance at the intra-organisational level. Participants also discussed choosing whom to interact with at meetings based on members’ awareness of their role, commitment to the organisation, commitment to their role and the prospects for developing new skills and strategizing the acquired skills. These individuals and team members’ experiences spoken by M215 reveal learning, KM and innovation processes in a geographically dispersed environment. Participants at the academic level of the organisation describe their collective as being established in response to broad issues that had emerged from interaction with members. The mechanisms that they use for interaction are based on accessing a broad range of aptitudes for dealing with a diverse environment. One organisational member at a distant site compared the differences of interacting with selective team members with that of groups in the head office, which they see as collective relationships forming along a wide meshed structure of collective networks.

5.2.2.1

Social Innovation: Collective Networks—Centrality

An important theme within collective networks for these participants gathers around their discussed term, centrality. This code was developed based on participants’ discussions about engaging and interacting amongst organisational members and the setting of boundaries around dynamic groups. This term centrality became a vital word in participants’ development of understanding about the ways that participants engage with others and with whom to interact. Participants used it to describe the boundaries of the collective. It provides a frame through which the collective manages knowledge across geographical boundaries when implementing innovation, which in this specific case, were academic teaching and learning practices for effective student development. M42: We do get regular feedback. We share our teaching practices. We share the difficulties and the fun part of managing students compared to our own campus students as well, so yes. And these university partners when they come down for examination boards, they also provide valuable feedback for us to work upon.

A participant commented how people at a distance were useful to the collective in developing knowledge, learning and carrying out practices through solving problems that emerge in day-to-day interactions. The distance most often forms around a specific issue or problem related to a member’s work, or in Snowden’s (2002) use of the word, an attractant. Participants gave examples of their gathering in an organic way around a work-related problem. M218: Okay, some of the lecturers from the School of IT, they also have this module, respective module learning circles. They take this leadership initiative for their specific modules. And they are actively interacting through this learning circles activity as well.

It was evident from this excerpt that different teams had different team members for different functions. In this case, the increased concentration of team members for coordination across different team members is obvious. It demonstrates the tighter

5.2 Social Innovation

153

definition of the collective as a function of the flexibility of the environment. The organisational member is central (Nix, Lusch, Zacharia & Bridges, 2008) and facilitates social interaction to exchange knowledge and also facilitates the pooling of complementary skills (McDonough, Zack, Lin & Berdrow, 2008) from different sources. M27: I agree to what Dr.[…] has said. However, in the School of Business, IT, Media & Comm, lecturers share knowledge and also cross support learning activities & teach in various schools too. These lecturers are also required to travel to […] and also coordinate with their respective university’s unit coordinators too.

Members’ attempts to form groups to facilitate social interaction and learningactivities were influencing and motivating; it was evident that the forming of teams was urged at all levels. Encouraging practices experienced at the intraorganisational level related to learning practices and solutions of local problems can be considered part of the ease and flexibility of collective networking. A participant working in head office, having moved from a routine area, describes the impact on her focus as a result of shifting priorities and shifting targets for interaction. Apart from the tacitness of knowledge, the local team members’ prior experience, cultural difference and organisational distance made it suitable for social interaction, knowledge transfer and self-organise to connect with others. M118: So while taking up these distance learning assignments and overseas assignments, it also helps us to share knowledge, seek feedback on of a leadership practice. We are empowered. We do this with passion. We are true to ourselves. We are true to our beliefs. We are also directly correlating to the well-being of other learners as well. M46: We are, to an extent, transferring and sharing best practices and knowledge across different schools and also with our overseas counterparts. Distance is no barrier as technology has allowed us to communicate very easily. As you can see our technological infrastructure is quite updated with video conferencing facilities, boardrooms for conferences and meetings, shared networks, and a blackboard for managing our content, etc. F34: Though we are in distance, knowledge sharing does take place.

Organisational members form social values around their distance groups through interaction, acquiring new skills and problem solving. This coordination is a natural process which facilitates the group’s adaptive and innovative process. This behaviour of team members working collectively is associated with the degree of centrality (Freeman, 1979), and participants use it to describe the boundaries to the collective central to the organisation, or network, on the basis of the number of ties that connect it through social interaction with other members for pooling of skills. An effort to cross boundaries and form collaboration is very obvious in the discussion of M46 too. The aim of this engagement with a collective and with the system is to share lessons learned and to create a common process for individual and collective performances. With the commonly used knowledge-sharing mechanisms and tools, the common practices and the information of the selective others, selective coordination and implementing new practices and skills can be visualised in a system that is open for organisational members.

154

5.2.2.2

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

Social Innovation: Collective Networks—Distance

Distance emerged as a major theme in participants’ discussions about learning, knowledge development and exploiting practices. During the group sensemaking session, the participants agreed with the author’s interpretation and to the development of this theme during preliminary coding. Participants talked about distance in relation to networks and the connect theme, which is dealt with in detail in the architectural innovation findings section. M320: Working with others is a very, very enjoyable experience. It is to see with a fresh pair of eyes, getting new ideas, getting new perspectives. So you’re getting new friends, getting new cultures, new mentors, new buddies, who are more committed colleagues, who are more passionate in their work. That is most important, who are more committed in their work, in sharing knowledge, and passionate in sharing knowledge.

Participants discussed the influence of the local context on their interactions and their seeking out of other members in the distance environment to solve local and distance problems by getting new ideas, as well as to transfer knowledge from local to distance team members across geographical boundaries. This knowledge seeking and transfer behaviour in distance through social interaction results in an interest in carrying out new perspectives with individuals and team members. The need for individuals emerging from the local environment influencing the formation of team members for interaction and executing new practices were evident. M46: We are, to an extent, transferring and sharing best practices and knowledge across different schools, and also with our overseas counterparts. F34: I, once a week ask every lecturer & staff member to have a 30-min one-on-one meeting with me where the staff owns the agenda 100%. This is formally recorded and sometimes it is also held as an extended coffee break at the canteen in an informal way.

It is obvious from these participant discussions that seeking and transferring knowledge through organised communication offered by team members— supporting communication across geographic boundaries—and knowledge agents in the academic community encourages the use of knowledge seeking and transfer mechanisms in problem solving and informing team members about the value of the system, both for individual and team members at a distance. These practices allow fundamentally different interest groups to understand that their goals of teaching and learning for effective student development are identical. M46: Distance is no barrier as technology has allowed us to communicate very easily.

Participants discussed cross-boundary interaction and working with team members as a whole and within their socio-cultural environment with passion and commitment. This discourse reinforces the strong theme about the interaction that takes place while working at a distance and in geographically dispersed locations. There is a clear individual understanding of the working sphere within his or her environment. Participants’ experiences and practices illustrate that the organisation,

5.2 Social Innovation

155

perceived as a theoretical construct, is often regarded as relevant to the distance and the local environment of operation at the intra-organisational level. Priority for sharing information, learning to solve problems at work, and learning from and with others to develop knowledge, putting new ideas into practice and how these are tied to actual local and at distance issues surrounded the discussions of achieving excellence. Organisational members were focused on the individual collective and intra-organisational level and formed groups for social interaction based on features of other agents in dealing with the local and distant experiences involving the organisation’s attempts to maintain consistency across its boundaries. Practices at the local and distant levels are a basis to embody coherence in terms of unity of purpose in knowledge seeking and transfer. Collectives transform knowledge to create common interests to collaborate and putting new perspectives into practice. Thus, these organisational members’ behaviour reveals their learning, KM and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed working environment.

5.2.2.3

Social Innovation: Collective Networks—Knowledge Seeking

In relation to a particular problem, participants identify which person or team to interact with based on their consideration of the importance of the knowledge that the individual or collective holds. Participants are keen to share experiences about the support they receive in knowledge seeking and transfer, and in particular which knowledge types to draw from the available sources. M16: What is practiced and implemented in Singapore successfully is transferred to […] staff. We introduce best practices and encourage staff working on similar projects in Singapore or […] This allows us for intra-organisational networking opportunities and also allowing staff for socialization of tacit knowledge. F33: I organise informal and formal meeting sessions for applying new skills in their roles. M15: In my school of business, all staff are given the task of teaching something to someone as a matter of course. It could be teaching members of another department how something is done. It could be running all hands meeting to present the new business proposal to a potential investor. Everyone is asked to teach because that’s how we learn best. F34: In school of technology & e-learning, I, once a week every ask every lecturer & staff to have a 30 min one on one meeting with me where the staff owns the agenda 100%. This is formally recorded and sometimes it is also held as an extended coffee break at the canteen in an informal way. F14: The meeting could be the opportunity to figure out how to do something that is holding up a project or it could be the chance to outline a pet project they would like to take on. F24: I, as a head of school, also learn how to manage when I learn about whom I am managing. I am being taught as well in this process. M24: I send them for training. Learning needs analysis is documented and the necessary training schedule is prepared for all staff in my department prior to the start of the new financial year. Staff are planned to travel overseas & […] also plan to attend training & development in Singapore. It is intra-organisational learning, inter cultural learning and communication & we learn & adopt the best practices.

They are willing to accept feedback and outcomes of their performance too.

156

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

M34: Yes, I agree and have similar views too.

These excerpts from different participants illustrate the features of social learning, knowledge seeking and transfer, and exploration of new practices and exploitation existing practices that were frequently discussed. Participants spoke about distance, geographically dispersed locations, local and common immediate problems, intraorganisational sources of information, ranges of perspectives for solutions with individuals and team members who share common understanding. In these participants’ discourses, it is evident that the preference of individuals is to select features in others that align with their own preferred way of working. Therefore, there is considerable understanding regarding flexible KM mechanisms used as a common glossary to collaborate with individuals and team members for interaction. This social behaviour bridges the knowledge boundary for the purpose of knowledge development and execution of new practices. The resemblance of a local knowledge source, as M24 shares, and a knowledge seeker at distance, as M34 agrees, has made it obvious that there is an increased likelihood of interaction between individuals and team members and construction of new knowledge occurs in the process of knowledge transfer whilst travelling and being co-located with team members. This reciprocity between the perspectives or motives comes about, and later socially compatible behaviour becomes possible and evident. F27: They like to Share what they are doing, but very rarely like we can see that they also see lecturers in order to maintain their position of importance. They tend not to share.

Participants believe that they select technical knowledge and face-to-face formal and informal modes to aid their connectivity for social interaction, common understanding and carrying out new practices. F38: Informal chatting sessions are held at canteens or corridors or in the staff room too. We discuss about handling difficult students, how to engage students in learning processes and what teaching styles can be used to handle different cohorts of students from different cultural backgrounds too. These discussions are not only held within the same department staff, as we are co-located in the same room and level, we get to chat and talk informally too. The same might also be shared during formal meeting sessions were we hold the monthly staff meeting amongst all staff.

The participants of this study recognised the organisation as a whole and real entity. Their identity is built through acting in a diverse environment, interacting socially and working effectively in a geographically dispersed environment. The priority for their activity was collective outcomes. The participants discussed in detail the availability of resources, the network orientation of social interaction and integrated communication structure. A corporate culture supportive of the networking idea revealed network competence (Ritter, 1999), which is characterised by rich social interaction that occupies a central network position (De Nooy et al., 2005) and perform better in terms of innovation (Fox, Jeffery, Smith, Cronin Jr & Brusco, 2013).

5.2 Social Innovation

5.2.2.4

157

Social Innovation: Collective Networks—Passionate About Their Job

Individuals join a collective because of the characteristics that assist immediate problem solving, sharing knowledge and executing new skills with individuals and team members across geographical boundaries. Participants discussed their experiences of recognising others on the basis of their perception of the organisation and the role and responsibility within it. All participants discussed the team members’ relationship with each member as being influenced by their perception of the organisation. M24: Lecturers are passionate about seeing growth in their students, successful as a human because it’s a moral profession and for professional integrity. M25: So, we create a conducive environment, so that they can be committed to the organisation; it creates a sense of community, affiliation, and personal caring among adults within the schools. F314: And we all love doing this job; we have passion for doing this job; we are committed in doing this job…. M32: So it creates a sense of belonging in me.

The perception of others’ passion for their job provides tags for selective interaction, and the discourse serves as evidence. The passion of interest in the organisation is illustrated as information flows in a collaborative environment for these participants. M32 agrees with the rest of the participants. This excerpt reveals the organisational member describing the individual and team members’, passionate about their job, as a way of interaction and organisational knowledge development, highlighting a sense of community as the instrument for these outcomes. In this excerpt, with only one instance, two participants are discussing some organisational members’ attitudes that they believe to be disruptive to supportive behaviour. Most often, all of them expressed interest in engaging others for interaction. F27: They like to share what they are doing, but very rarely like we can see that they also see lecturers in order to maintain their position of importance. They tend not to share. M218: they also – some of the lecturers also have this issue over here that no time to improve practices here.

The passion is revealed in these discourses. It emerges in the sensemaking that takes place in relation to the role of the organisation and the individual’s perspective of their responsibility within that role. F16: Our leaders articulate their vision in a clear & appealing manner, they explain how to attain the vision, lead by example and empower us to achieve the vision.

Yes, I agree that our leaders promote new possibilities and generate a compelling vision of the future. They are the source of inspiration and visibly model appropriate behaviours. Their goal is change and their energy, enthusiasm and vision open up new and exciting possibilities within our institute.

158

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

M36: I agree, too, that our supervisors & bosses require us to take risks, think creatively and courageously, be decisive, and communicate the vision of where we are progressing ahead and how we are going to get there.

Organisational members reflect on being able to connect their interest and learning at individual and collective levels; their interactions are based on understandings of the organisation’s role and goals. This appears to be a mediating factor on the knowledge that is developed by the collective—team members act on their intra-organisational understanding of the organisation’s role in solving problems, executing solutions and to achieve goals through intra-organisational interaction.

5.2.2.5

Social Innovation: Collective Networks—Valuing People and Valuing Their Job

M227: So, what we are doing is we build capacity through this community by networking with those who have similar interests – like-minded people who want to achieve similar outcomes, so we form a network & we form a community to share practices.

Participants discussed their experiences with interaction based upon a common collective understanding of the value of the people within the organisation and the tasks they perform. These insights arose in discussions about commitment and enthusiasm for sharing and the connection between organisational members who agree on their importance. This example illustrates organisational members’ relationship for similar values by providing an example of the passion and interests posed when values are commonly agreed upon. M319: This has changed the focus to human communities strengthening of human values and also to ensure that education is for a good reason, for a good purpose. And we also see that for equity and diversity as well, so it is between partnerships & education, be it in different locations so we set expectations for the engagement of students from different cultures, from different countries, and all are getting a similar education. So, that was again equity. F224: They are too passionate about their job. They love doing their job. They are committed in doing their job. So, they take up the responsibility with passion. M231: We are literally living inside the experience, like it is a real, rich experience. Like when I travelled to […] for two weeks or I had an opportunity to be there for one month and my earliest job assignment was performance. M232: I was really living inside the experience. I was learning the culture. I was sharing my experience. I was sharing my skills through seminars, conducting simple workshops, attending conferences. So, I had the opportunity to attend conferences; I value the process and I give time to it.

The excerpts above from different participants illustrate the development of the idea of valuing work as an antecedent to learning, managing knowledge and practical implementation of new practices. The discourse commences with a participant from a distance office. Other participants at the head office agree, and they see collective networks offering more value to the organisation in solving problems, developing

5.2 Social Innovation

159

and exploiting knowledge, and putting new ideas into practices across geographical boundaries. The team members’ idea of the value of knowledge that emerges in the geographically dispersed working environment amongst academics is evident in this discussion. Delineating what is considered as learning, knowledge, and innovation in the organisation and how they are facilitated by collective networking by members with similar values helps put issues such as organisational characteristics, organisational structures, and connections across organisational members and team members in perspective. Intra-organisational learning involves the processes through which groups and departments change as a result of experience (Argote & Darr, 2000). In this study, different schools and their members learned from their own direct experience and also from other members and departments (Levitt & March, 1988) through social interaction. Members also learned and took advantage of other members’ expertise (Lewis, 2000) in managing knowledge. The study suggests that rotating members by moving them across groups and across distant sites (Gruenfeld, Martorana & Fan, 2000) is a mechanism that stimulates individuals and team members to put new ideas into practice.

5.3 Social Innovation Conclusion This section describes the consequences of interactions between individuals and a social system that is organised in a collective manner within a dynamic geographically dispersed environment that pays attention to an increasing ability to manage knowledge and implement new practices. It emphasises that collective behaviour supports group emotions and shows how team members interact with others outside the group boundaries and how these boundaries ensure learning, KM and execute innovation practices in a geographically dispersed environment. Participants’ discussion details the social interactions and collaborative linkages that facilitate the exploitation and exchange of knowledge, and the pooling of similar skills from different departments and members from different geographical locations to implement new practices. Collective relationships are built by experienced workers who interact with each other and further develop other collective networks. This chapter underlined the ways in which these team members can develop and manage knowledge across geographical boundaries; and how collective relationships and collective networks facilitate learning, KM and innovation beyond the collective level. The chapter explains the link between collective relationships and collective networks. It identifies learning, development of knowledge and implementation of innovation as a self-motivating behaviour that is related to the structures of the organisation and the value of work and its end results at individual and collective levels. These concepts focus on the ways that individuals and team members work together in developing knowledge and putting new skills into practice. They highlight the value of knowledge which is embedded in social interaction in its collective validity and use. Therefore, it recognises knowledge as social, geographically dispersed and

160

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

situated and maximises knowledge in organisational structures. In this study, social innovation relates to a process that develops new behaviours and interactions between individuals and team members that result in evolving relationships and networks that facilitate interaction internally and externally to achieve performance and enhance competence in the organisation. These findings corresponding to collective relationships and collective networks trigger questions about the structural dimension of social innovation capital (McElroy, 2002), and the following section on architectural innovation provides information on the overall learning, KM and innovation processes within a network. It also explains the specific configuration of the network and the linkages between the experiences of the team members and the formal organisation.

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation Organisational characteristics and structure influences learning, KM, and innovation through commitment to learning as a bonding mechanism amongst the organisational members who share organisational knowledge and implement new practices. This chapter presents findings that relate to organisational characteristics and the features of organisational structure established within architectural innovation concept as illustrated in Table 5.2. Learning, KM and innovation practice that emerges from organisational members’ commitment and engagement with their work was revealed in participants’ discussions. Commitment is described as being influenced by the interactions and interrelationships amongst organisational members to support and empower organisational members with responsibility and flexibility to support changes in innovative work routines. The result is achieved from members’ passion for finding connections between organisational members at a distance from the organisation and meeting the needs of their students, customers and colleagues. Flexibility and responsibility in Table 5.2 Architectural innovation concept: hierarchy of themes Architectural innovation

Organisation characteristics

Travel

Architectural innovation

Organisation characteristics

Responsibility

Architectural innovation

Organisation characteristics

Flexibility

Architectural innovation

Organisation characteristics

Resources

Architectural innovation

Organisational structure

Connect

Architectural innovation

Organisational structure

Direction

Architectural innovation

Organisational structure

Measurement

Architectural innovation

Organisational structure

Monitor performance

Architectural innovation

Organisational structure

Control

Architectural innovation

Organisational structure

Community

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

161

the geographically dispersed working environment and their influence on interaction, development of new knowledge, and putting new knowledge into practice is presented here as critical to participants’ experience of learning, KM, and innovation. Participants spoke about creating and adopting new structural characteristics of social networks and operations and their working systems in detail. Balestrin et al. (2008) described the conditions favourable to innovation as including organisational structure, time, and sharing physical or virtual spaces. Alvarenga Neto (2007) claimed that architectural innovations refer to changes in the organisation’s structure or processes. Bennett (2001) described the stimulus to social and informal gatherings and claimed that flexible empowerment of organisations and informal organisational structures encourage creativity and facilitate fast and effective communications. In this study, an informal element of the organisational characteristics that supports innovation is empowerment (Alsop et al., 2005), which includes motivation and relations of power (Foucault, 1983). In this sense, the increasing flux of this organisation is significant because, in fact, it suggests that empowerment is becoming increasingly prominent because the organisation is changing, as its diverse sites affect learning, KM, and innovation practices in various ways and are more susceptible to unforeseen shifts (Griffith, Larkin, Cierpial, Gettings & Capasso, 2007). From participants’ discussions, it is evident that the positive effects of empowerment improve social interaction, develop new knowledge, and exploit new knowledge as it allows organisational members to develop their own ideas and practices and to adapt to local current circumstances. Participants discussed how empowerment provides them with the ability to improve their situations in terms of the underlying governing values of their work and allows them to come up with new solutions. Therefore, it seems that empowerment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh & Bhatia, 2004; Jones, Sambrook & Irvine, 2011) positively affects OL, KM and innovation. This chapter presents how the architectural aspects of physical environment, which include the properties of travel, connect, direction, measurement, monitor performance, control and community, reveal the organisational members’ relationship to learning, KM, and innovation processes that leads to the practical implementation of innovation in the geographically dispersed environment. The characteristics of the architectural innovation findings are presented in this chapter, illustrating organisational structures and organisational characteristics through the participants’ discussion. The participant discussions highlight the clear support between the organisational characteristics of participants’ experience and organisational expectations with consistency and describe the significant connections this support has to their interaction, development and sharing of knowledge, and carrying out new practices in a geographically dispersed environment. Ten Have, Ten Have, Stevens and Van der Elst (2003) described new management techniques that involve ways of organizing and structuring the external world in relation to organisations and ideas that have been put into practice that create value for organisations. In addition to this, a few other scholars point out that innovation in the areas of management practice, administrative processes or formal organisational structures is the result of technological advancement (Drejer, 2000; Johanessen, Olsen & Lumpkin, 2001). Whereas, Nonaka et al. (2000) claimed that tacit knowledge

162

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

is transferred through the socialization process of sharing experiences in joint activities. From the excerpt below, it is obvious that learning, development of knowledge, and breaking any traditional rules affects practical implementation of processes and can be converted for organisational use through personal and impersonal processes. M317: It is getting to get engaged and connecting with others. So, this makes us happy to see, so it is breaking any traditional rules. This is in the change process that all of us are going through as a team.

In addition to M317’s quote above, the following sections illustrate how positive emotions ease the way for a team-based organisational structure, and high flexibility helps an organisation to adapt to a rapidly changing external and internal environment, with employees becoming more adaptive to circumstances and more predisposed towards innovative behaviour and with exploration leading to social learning, KM and innovation. M229: I look at the industry rather than thinking about myself, rather than examining myself, but I will see it in entirety outside the institute. And I am also emotionally engaged. I have the passion for deep learning so I tried to come out from my comfort zone, from my regular habits and ideas. So, out of passion, this helps me to connect to learn new things. So, this is the moral purpose, the passion for learning new things which is where I’m emotionally bonded. So, the moral purpose makes me want to know more and do more.

Participants frequently described their experiences with organisational members interacting within their environment, including a reference to a motivational experience. In many cases, too, this experience of dealing with empowerment dynamics is contrasted with the organisation’s assumption of linearity and the expectation of the organisation that staff act in line with prescribed linear processes. The organisational structure is viewed as a linear system. However, the lived experience of these organisational members is inherently linked to empowerment. The dissimilarity between the formal organisational structure and the employee involvement (Cotton, 1993) experience of organisational members is highlighted as a significant feature influencing learning, development of knowledge, and executing practices in a geographically dispersed environment. F315: So, our leaders encourage people, our head of schools to ask more questions so that we can come up with more answers and thus will make us more involved. F15: Our trust is to empower our staff, provide them an environment for on job training and learning, learning in context occurs. The tasks are documented and also made accessible to the team members who are involved in the respective matrix meetings & projects.

Cotton (1993) described employee involvement as ‘a participative process to use the entire capacity of workers, designed to encourage employee commitment to organisational success’ (p. 3). F110: We also engage our students to be involved in community activities like students’ exchange program between Vietnam students and Singapore students, Singapore students travelling to Cambodia to provide community services.

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

163

In this study, participants spoke that student individuality is an important factor in the employee involvement of lecturers. Participants spoke of the responsibility, satisfaction and preference they use in solving the diversity of problems that emerge in student interactions. Excerpts reveal there to be little evidence of linear connections between the source and outcome in organisational members’ application of organisational rules. Participants’ use of process, which allows for handling diverse students, is apparent in participants’ discussions. M16: Yes, it is not always a smooth sailing ride because we do face problems. We have different types of students who – we have this Gen-Y. We have baby boomers, part-time students. We have Gen-X students. F39: Even managing the Gen-Y type of students is a challenge and contrary like part-time students will come that rich experience, but with poor academic skills. So, that will be who are basically baby boomers and Generation X. M39: Managing students, managing lecturers to deal with different type of students, the teaching skills required to handle different types of Students.

This excerpt reveals that when individuals and groups are passionately focused on an activity, teachers are able to see beyond the situation. When questioning operating norms, they are improving it and modifying it, which affirms that generative learning (Argyris & Schön, 1974, 1978; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Senge, 1990) in this organisation adjusts to new ways of looking at the world and understanding students and how to better manage them. Below excerpt reveals about participants’ individual and team creativity that incorporates existing knowledge with new ideas to manage students in every day work. Social interaction and learning approach results in a new way of viewing existing practices. F218: There will be cultural differences when engaging with different staff but that is also a very good knowledge having a sharing session as well as it’s a good learning process, a good learning process as well. M319: And we also see that for equity and diversity as well, so it is between partnerships, educations, be it in different locations so we set expectations for getting engagement of students from different culture, from different countries and all are getting similar education.

The difficulty in drawing boundaries around what is inside and what is outside the system is introduced in these examples of employee involvement dynamics. In these discussions, students and employees are both part of the collective dynamic and part of the environment, with the connectedness of all elements in interaction producing innovative outcomes. Aramburu, Saénz and Rivera (2006) and Nonaka et al. (2000) described the exchange of knowledge assets as inputs and outputs of the knowledge creation process that integrate the basis of knowledge accumulated in the organisation. Access to and exchange of this information by members of the organisation and proves crucial for using already existing organisational knowledge, for generating new knowledge, as well as for practical implementation of new skills. Architectural innovation that depicts learning, knowledge exchange, and innovation processes in organisations is driven by flows of information, through social interaction, physical resources or emotions. In innovation systems (Rogers, 1995),

164

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

these flows affect the success or failure of agents and their role as nodes and can potentially shift the connections within a dynamic system. In architectural innovation, organisational members’ experience of working at full capacity, with intense engagement and intrinsic motivation and passion, is highlighted. An exchange of knowledge asset has been defined as the experience of working at full capacity, with intense engagement and effortless action, where personal skills match required challenges. Participants’ discussions provide insight into the ways in which these members learn through a balance of exploitation and exploration. They reflected that certain simultaneity and synchronization happens between them in their interactions. From the structural ambidexterity view, this organisation is able to solve the paradox by temporarily cycling through periods of exploitation and periods of exploration. Immense interaction is evident in their discussion. The impact of group self-actualization behaviour is developed and organisational members’ practice of developing and transferring knowledge is reflected as a result. Architectural innovation depicting learning, KM and practical implementation of innovation processes is presented in the Fig. 5.2 and also presented here through the two main categories that emerged through discussions on organisational structure and organisational characteristics. Fig. 5.2 Architectural invvoation core categories and coded data set

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

165

5.4.1 Architectural Innovation: Organisational Characteristics M229: And I am also emotionally engaged. I have the passion for deep learning so I tried to come out from my comfort zone, from my regular habits and ideas.

Fischer, Shaver and Carnochan (1990) define emotion as a ‘discrete, innate, functional, biosocial action and expression system’ (p. 84). Emotions take individuals, organisational members and organisations to the edge of chaos, a highly complex situation (Selye, 1987). Eustress (Selye, 1987) or positive stress is encouraged by positive emotions, such as passion, which bring about goal advancement (Fischer et al., 1990). Amiot, Vallerand and Blanchard (2006) affirm that the concept of passion has links with intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Thus, Amiot et al. (2006) claim that passionate people would experience more interaction, and sharing behaviour than less passionate individuals. Moreover, knowledge sharing and transfer results mainly from harmonious passion (see Vallerand et al., 2003). Emotions cause attitudes, yet, emotions are part of an attitude itself (Lines, 2005). Therefore, participants’ discussions about organisational characteristics reflect the attitude of organisational pride (Matthias, Gouthier & Rhein, 2011) as the result of repeated organisational pride emotions. The organisational members in this study reveal a high degree of favour and affiliation towards their organisation that reflects the typical characteristics of members’ attitudes that result from their experiences. Participants spoke about their management’s leadership style and depict employees’ identification with and pride in the company (Katzenbach, 2003). Furthermore, participants described the creation of a diverse work environment that positively contributes to their members’ organisational pride (Howell, 1966). Direction, rate and persistence are terms that essentially define the structure and character of an organisation (Clippinger, 1999, pp. 13–14). Organisation characteristics for these participants relate to their ability to travel, with responsibility and with flexibility in adapting and adopting various resources. Participants’ discussions illustrate the ways in which these properties impact participants’ opportunity to learn through their work and their willingness to share and develop knowledge, and putting new ideas into practice with team members in various locations and outside the local collective.

5.4.1.1

Architectural Innovation: Organisation Characteristics—Travel

The quote below reveals that leaders in this organisation point OL in a certain direction, whereby the rate at which something different is happening within this organisation: they persistently promote new interactions within the organisation and with groups at different sites.

166

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

F35: Leadership orientations, we as department heads significantly influence & contribute directly to lecturer commitment to students. M231: Yes, to add to this, we will see that – especially when lecturers or staff in […] and Singapore lecturers, when they travel to […] both as leaders, both our bosses and us, we prefer experiential learning or action learning. We feel this is essential and we are practicing this. We are literally living inside the experience, like it is a real, rich experience.

Individuals and groups notice and appraise their leaders and develop emotions towards them, depending on the organisational explicate order and their level of consciousness, or mindfulness. A high level of mindfulness reflects positive emotions in these participants’ discussions. Leaders—with internal conditions acting on the organisation that require organisational members to travel across diverse locations and interact at a distance – are the catalysts of social learning, generate new knowledge and executing new practices in this organisation. F15: Our management also provides interim job designations & responsibilities to be carried out in […] and local projects too. The projects can be to train peers on teaching strategies, student management, class room management, new programme liaison with overseas University Partners, managing a pool of adjunct lecturers etc.

The excerpt reveals how individuals and team members notice and appraise leaders depending on the organisational explicate order, and their high level of mindfulness determines their positive emotions. Leadership is a recurrent theme in discussions of travel, where participants describe important learning opportunities as ones in which the leader does not direct or restrict, but provides motivation for autonomy and exploration. Author: Do you, as a leader for this school, model a collaborative focus on improving student learning? M210: We have job assignments travelling to […] and we have […] lecturers who are coming down to attend certain global lessons, to attend seminars, and to be trained. They come here to gain experience and learning purposes, so yes. M34: A two-way communication of giving 360-degree feedback. M28: We have networking sessions. So, networking sessions with full-time lecturers that are formal and informal, having informal get-togethers. M24: Staff planned to travel to overseas and […] also planned to attend training and development in Singapore. It is intra-organisational learning, inter cultural learning and communication, and we learn and adopt the best practices.

They are willing to accept feedback. Participant M210 reflects on travel and subsequent discussions by other participants. They reflect its importance in learning, in the transfer of knowledge between individuals and team members and executing new practices. Leadership in this organisation endorses social interaction, KM and permits local responses to local conditions, which were described as vital to individual organisational members. It reveals that the leader as role models encourage learning, KM and executing practices into action in a geographically dispersed environment.

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

167

This organisation tends a balance of exploration and exploitation, which is evident in participants’ emotions as reflected in their discussions on how their organisational members face change with passion, which might be a consequence of the way the organisation is managed by its leaders. M35: Our bosses and leaders make a compelling case for constant change in our work flow and activities. Our heads share vision and seek broad input and encourage all department or school heads to think of a better future. Our leaders lead change projects and instil a sense of urgency. Most importantly, they encourage us to collaborate which increases the self-confidence of followers.

Individuals and team members within organisations mainly use attention, dialogue, emotions and aim to achieve a goal. In this organisation, generative learning is evident as a process that involves searching for connections, which indicates a holistic understanding of anything or anyone the organisational members interact with. F224: Similarly, once these staff in […] are being trained, they take up ownership. They are too passionate about their job; they love doing their job; they are committed in doing their job. So, they take up the responsibility with passion. They take up these leadership roles to further train their local lecturers there.

In the excerpt, participants are proud of the achievements of their organisational members and their working groups and thus develop organisational pride. This also suggests that pride is not merely an emotion, but a construct grounded in organisational members’ collective behaviour. An attitudinal understanding of organisational members’ pride towards the organisation is evident. F314: And we all love doing this job, we have passion for doing this job, and we are committed in doing this job.

Participant’s discourse revealed that organisational pride has a positive influence on the commitment to students. M24: Lecturers are passionate about seeing growth in their students, successful as a human because it’s a moral profession and for professional integrity.

Furthermore, participants expressed the opinion that organisational pride (positive) has the potential to influence creativity. M2: Our lecturers’ commitment is closely connected to their work performance and their ability to innovate and integrate new ideas into their own practice, as well as having an important influence on students’ achievement in, and attitudes toward school.

Participants added that creativity is not only influenced by organisational pride but by employee commitment to students and other employees. F224: So, they also have the sense of responsibility of having commitment to the family as well as to their parents, not only the students, but to their family and to the staff. You can clearly see that it is a collaborative effort with passion, with commitment, and with carefulness. Of course, they are very prudent in handling this.

168

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

Participants spoke about their members’ organisational pride, which has a negative influence on turnover. M24: I can also add that, it reduces employee turnover, employee turnover especially the lecturer profession.

Since employees need to meet student demands and heterogeneous problems, they often have to find innovative ways to satisfy students. Consequently, the concept of commitment to students also refers to the identification of alternatives and novel ideas. Thus, this example reveals that employee commitment to students has a positive influence on creativity. Knowledge developed and transferred through social interaction to employees located at another site produces a chain of changes and leads to ad hoc knowledge flows, which has multiplier and recycling effects. M46: We are, to an extent, transferring and sharing best practices and knowledge across different schools and with our overseas counterparts. M16: What is practiced and implemented in Singapore is successfully transferred to […] staff. We introduce best practices and encourage staff working on similar projects in Singapore or […] This allows intra-organisational networking opportunities and staff socialization of tacit knowledge.

These discussions reveal participants’ attitudes that reflect the experiences of their work as they travel across sites and interact at a distance. These attitudes are learnable and quite resilient, in comparison to mere emotions. Thus, employees’ willingness to travel, share, interact, and carrying out best practices at a distance with a collective reveals organisational pride (Heusinkveld, 2013; Lea & Webley, 1997; Parra-Requena et al., 2013) influencing social learning, constructing knowledge, and executing best practices in a geographically dispersed environment.

5.4.1.2

Architectural Innovation: Organisation Characteristics—Responsibility

Organisational members’ responsibility and knowledge move within and across diverse regions, forming heterogeneous, uneven and unpredictable behaviours. Urry (2003) claims that such behaviours ‘demonstrate no clear point of departure, deterritorialised movement, at certain speeds and at different levels of viscosity with no necessary end state or purpose’ (p. 60). This excerpt depicts an unpredictable situation that lacks a clear start and end point. F213: But one thing is when our lecturers would travel from Singapore to [deleted], then comes this difference. We think we are better than them. And they think they are better than us. Then, there comes this ‘we/them’ attitude, or it could also be between the university partners and the lecturers at our institute.

Shared adjacent offices and the co-location of team members (Jassawalla & Hemant, 2002) were revealed through participants’ discussion as factors that affect the development of new skills. Schein (1992) underlines the notion that the way

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

169

the physical environment interlinks with the behaviour and actions of the organisational members in their everyday actions constitutes a special issue. The quote by F213 above reveals that there are cultural artefacts of both social relations and physical settings that are inherent within every relationship and which enhance learning, knowledge processes and new skills. In this sense, physical organisational structural setting in a geographically dispersed environment accommodates the activities of organisational members who learn, create knowledge and putting new skills into practice is a form of innovation. The influence of hierarchical responsibility is illustrated in this excerpt and through discussions about consistency and autonomy. For many participants, the responsibility given to them through the organisation’s hierarchy influences their attempts to achieve appropriateness within the social and geographically dispersed environment. F223: empowering others need to start even higher at the senior management level with less bureaucracy, less controls of schools. So this is what we need to learn, contribute to a change how we would learn to help us to change the complete learning process. It’s like, ‘I believe that I have to change myself before influencing even my staff’.[…] This is one thing that I will really, really have to work at it. M42: Our boss, leaders, also focus on organisational performance encouraging well defined and assessed learning programmes that guide overall progress. F35: I instil strong beliefs and commitment among the lecturers to move forward in transforming the education. Lecturers Are the central holding various important responsibilities.

Foucault (1983) argued two meanings of subjects, as in subject to someone else by control and dependence, and as in being tied to an individual’s own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of power which subjugates and makes someone subject to something. Foucault (1983, p. 212) argued that ‘control’ most often concerns relations of power; those who are subject to the control of others are easily identified as subjugated. F111: My leaders, they ripple out, they influence these practices; they share their vision to form a community, to form a team to collaborate, to work in projects, and to influence to abide the community. F221: You know, it is informed. Our leaders are committed, they are very reflective. They are very courageous and they are very proactive and they push for a collaborative approach. M317: We develop it and we work with others as well so it was a joy of leadership that I should also say. So me, as a head of school, we could feel it is from the heart that you feel joy, that you all felt self-satisfied, that you are energized, and that it is engaging.

From these participant discussions, it can be seen that the constitution of organisational members through relations of power is a form of subjection because it demands that organisational members are constituted in particular, individual ways. Yet, integral to this form of subjection is that individuals constitute themselves as particular kinds of individuals who are productive members of an organisation. This constitution of subjects as individuals with unique identities is, however, a form of subjugation that is distinctive to this organisation. Thus, in this organisation, power works best at the individual level because it functions at this level to produce subjects

170

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

as individuals who are beneficial to the collective level and to the PEI. The indivisibility of power and knowledge is essential to this organisation for the production of individualised identities. M42: So, these are some knowledge sharing activities while our lecturers take up these leadership roles while being at. M25: Well, yes. Knowledge sharing worked well, but while doing this I have also observed that it is not that just because a lecturer has clocked in a certain number of years. Having stayed for 10 years, 15 years in a company doesn’t mean that he will be a good leader. F22: Staying long in a position, staying long in a profession, doesn’t mean that they can become good leaders. So, it should be someone they look for even. F33: When I recruit a new lecturer, when I recruit a senior manager, we see the person, the skills in the person who is respected and who has these team bonding skills.

This excerpt reveals that individuals do not ‘possess’ power not only because power is not available for possession, it is, explicitly, a relation and because individuals themselves are continually being constituted and re-constituted as an effect of those relations at the intra-organisational level in this organisation. Thus, when individuals in this organisation seem to possess agency or leadership abilities, it is only an effect of the ways in which individuals have been constituted. Therefore, it is apparent that a leader or relational agency is generated through relationships between various individuals. The flexibility of innovative systems seems to encourage the possibility of changing the organisation in any particular way. The notions of self-motivation, commitment and responsibility, as reflected by the organisational members, are important aspects in the generation of collective innovative phenomena. In this study, the notions of motivation, trust and commitment as part of a collective process in this organisation led to developing the notion of leaders’ influence because it emphasises the interconnectedness of organisational members, organisational structures, technological infrastructures, and environments without denying each their own ontological status. Participants’ need for flexibility and responsibility has important implications for the sharing of learning from the socio-cultural environment, for the development and flow of the resultant knowledge for the organisation’s advantage and for implementing new practices in a geographically dispersed environment.

5.4.1.3

Architectural Innovation: Organisation Characteristics—Flexibility

Participants discussed individual and collective flexibility, collaboration and problem-solving choices as critical to continuing within their demanding ‘fitness landscape’ (Kauffman, 1993, p. 246). Participants described acquired skills that support flexibility within the environment. They also noted that risk-taking behaviour is required and results from applying energy, enthusiasm and flexible rules.

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

171

M310: And also, my lecturers, I can see that they have problem solving skills. We work and trust and communicate more F16: Their goal is change and their energy, enthusiasm and vision open up new and exciting possibilities within our institute. M36: require us to take risks, think creatively and courageously, be decisive and communicate the vision of where we are progressing ahead and how we are going to get there. This approach is all about change.

Participants discussed applying flexibility through regular habits and ideas in successful OL, organisational knowledge development and innovation. In this excerpt, it is apparent that participants are describing an organisation with high levels of flexibility. Participants described the scope of being proactive, which leads to continuous learning, knowledge development and carrying out everyday tasks due to change. M229: I have the passion for deep learning so I tried to come out from my comfort zone, from my regular habits and ideas. F315: I also influence them to stand-up for a change and be stronger and more certain with this proactiveness. So, it is rather than just doing, it is just we’ll lead, leading them to a comfort zone.

The perceived dynamic environment prompted participants to discuss their need for continuous change, flexibility, transformation of formal processes and appropriate procedures to be able to meet the need of the local environment and interact with organisational members. Participants did speak about the organisation adhering to a strict application of the rules by organisational members at off-site facilities. This was contrasted with the perceived need for those working on the intra-organisational level and handling students’ needs to be able to implement legislation in the intended way. M44: CPE- Council for private education is concerned about private education institutes in Singapore that offer distance education programmes. They monitor the quality of programmes, staff recruitment criteria, and student admissions criteria. In addition to this, what CPE is most concerned about is students’ fee protection scheme. M37: One thing is because of CPE regulations, the Council of Private Education. There are requirements where they want to see some meeting minutes of a regular staff meeting, but it is not only just to adhere to those requirements. As such, we don’t see any evidence of people hesitating, lecturers hesitating to share knowledge.

The lack of bureaucratic flexibility on the part of the council for private education (CPE) in Singapore was a concern for participants in dealing with their environment and students as their customers. The flexibility inherent in the regulations is described as a flexibility they are forced to utilise. Interpretations of regulations are made externally and by partners in the organisation and provided to organisational members. The current arrangements have led to certain extent stability for this organisation, and the CPE has, in part, correctly perceived the need to alter the current rules in private education organisations operating in a geographically dispersed environment.

172

5.4.1.4

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

Architectural Innovation: Organisation Characteristics—Resources

Transferring and sharing best practices, knowledge across different schools and also with our overseas counterparts, to explore using resources and share with organisational members were expressions consistently linked by participants to learning, knowledge creation, the movement of that knowledge and implementing new ideas through the organisation. Relationships between emotional salience and geographically dispersed working environment experiences related to technology were identified as important in participants’ discussions about the change process in the diverse settings in this organisation. Technology diffusion, adoption, and acceptance—each overlapping aspects of the human dynamics by which new artefacts become embedded in the social processes of organisations—are evident in participants’ discussions below. As discussed in the previous section, events and emotions in the organisation play important roles in influencing employees’ attitudes and behaviour and in adopting resources for social interaction for the flow of knowledge. The flow of information through the various virtual channels is bidirectional, from individual members to other organisational members of the organisation and from them, via the wisdom of the groups, back to the individual member. Such interdependence is apparent in participants’ discussions and presumably essential for the individual member, as well as for the effective and active flow of information. Hence, a need arises to formulate optimal behavioural parameters, which individual users should acquire in order to maximise the effectiveness of organisational resources. M29: And those lecturers who are really IT savvy because in today’s work there are many offers to use mobile technology. There are many free services so they make use of such facilities like making use of – What’s that? All for free SMS, so my […] colleagues can interact with me or use their Face book. These are some activities that we can see. In the School of IT & E-learning, lecturers and students are able to interact and communicate via black board and Moodle to facilitate e-learning. F213: So, some colleagues or the bosses also refer to this shared drive or shared point access where we have all the practices and the training activities that are being installed. M221: sharing takes place in the form of learning management systems. It could be through use of a blackboard. It could be through social media networking, where we formally communicate through a blackboard model. But informally, we share knowledge also using social media like Facebook. M46: We are, to an extent, transferring and sharing best practices and knowledge across different schools, and also with our overseas counterparts. Distance is no longer barrier as technology has allowed us to communicate very easily. As you can see, our technological infra-structure is quite updated, with video conferencing facilities, boardrooms for conferences and meetings, shared networks, and a blackboard for managing our content. M16: What is practiced and implemented in Singapore successfully is transferred to […] staff. We introduce best practices and encourage staff working on similar projects in Singapore or […] This allows us for intra-organisational networking opportunities and also allows staff socialization of tacit knowledge. F36: Department heads, lecturers as managers and senior managers help to document the cases, lessons learnt, the cause of knowledge sharing, and then store them in our shared

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

173

network resources and via the blackboard. This becomes and serves as a ‘people’s’ directory and we are able to capture all information. M26: I have a positive intention, willingness to help, willingness to grow my staff Since I have this attitude, then I grow my staff, in return, I will be able to move up my career ladder & see growth in my lecturers to take up leadership roles too.

In these examples of well-connected teams, a participant describes the opportunity for exploration using the various mechanisms for interaction that are available to the team. It is apparent that technologies typically improve as more organisational members adopt them and the organisation gains experience that guides further development. It is apparent in participants’ discussion that it is not about what technology they use, but how they use technology for interaction and engage learning. The technology use described by participants does not conceive of technologies as repositories of procedures and information. Rather, the organisational members in order to interact, individuals engage team members using the technology to represent what they know, share and aid in putting new skills into practice. This link demonstrates a positive feedback loop. The more organisational members adopt a technology, the more it will improve, and the more attractive it will become for further adoption for social learning, knowledge development and carrying out new skills. For participant M29, an opportunity to work at a distance on a work assignment for a period of time was seen as a great chance to bring new knowledge to the organisation, as well as to develop his own learning and putting processes into practice. He has had a transformative experience through which he believes he has come to a new sense of identity (Bennis & Thomas, 2002), and the leaders in the organisation support this attempt to develop and share knowledge with others from the new experience. The development of new knowledge across the diverse boundaries of the organisation amongst organisational members and the use of technology are also seen as opportunities to explore new solutions. M231: We are literally living inside the experience, like it is a real, rich experience. Like when I travelled to […] for two weeks, or I had an opportunity to be there for one month and my earliest job assignment was performance. M232: I was really living inside the experience. I was learning the culture. I was sharing my experience. I was sharing my skills through seminars, conducting simple workshops, and attending to conferences. So, I had the opportunity to attend conferences, and I value the process and also give time to eat. F13: The other lecturers also appreciate it by doing it or by doing it with passion, with interest. They also shared their practices. One of them also said that action learning or experiential learning allowed them to look at new things, a creative way of doing things, or to innovative a way of doing things they could see, which was a new process they learned. F25: The lecturers also feel motivated because they can see that there is development, staff development. There is training and potential lecturers are involved in leadership development activities as well.

In the quotes by M231 and M232 above, they reveal a tipping point (Holland, 1995): defined as a point of discontinuity in one’s life where emergence or discovery occurs. The tipping point in the organisation has induced a change in others’ behaviour and appears as a dramatic emergent phenomenon.

174

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

M232 describes, in emotionally-charged terms, a process of learning by focusing attention on the meaningfulness of virtual interaction structures, based on the extent to which the emotions associated with the event are constructively managed. In the organisation, all participants spoke about leadership development, and F25 describes his approach to finding out what is important, valuable and relevant to leaders. They were able to identify an individual’s previous momentous events and then use those events as starting points for the development of leadership training. In the excerpts above (M231, M232, F13 and F25), it is apparent that the relationship between emotional salience and experiences in the geographically dispersed environment at a collective level across geographic boundaries are related to the adoption of technology. And, a development-focused orientation on leadership encouraged organisational members to share and transfer knowledge using various available resources. Furthermore, individuals’ pursuit of personal development and organisational development, which is inherent in the organisational characteristics in these discussions, can come to an important tipping point in terms of OL, the flow of knowledge and innovation.

5.4.2 Architectural Innovation: Organisational Structure Participants described the physical organisational layout (Miciunas, 2002), which includes a capacity that enables organisational members to improve their interaction for learning, knowledge acquisition, development, their knowledge sharing, generating new knowledge and implementing new practices without being limited to improving the functionality of the space with their lived experience in an organisational structure. Participants spoke of their perception that the structure is something specifically contextual, something to which they require some adjustment. They stress that there is a level of expertise in dealing with the environment that is critical to members’ survival within it. F316: Okay. So, we are not judgmental and teachers are in the profession. The teachers are in the best position to be non-judgmental and unconditional with regards for our students. They have an unconditional regard for students and they are able to listen to a student’s voice.

In addition to the impact of human interaction on the exchange of learning, knowledge dynamics, and innovation processes, participants also spoke about the limitations of a few of its organisational members who were non-participative as far as using collaboration systems. When talking about the implications for learning, a participant articulated the gap between organisational members’ use of collaborative systems versus the use of other channels of interacting. M310: And also, My lecturers, i can see that they have problem solving skills. We work and trust and communicate more. F16: Their goal is change and their energy, enthusiasm, and vision open up new and exciting possibilities within our institute.

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

175

M36: Require us to take risks, think creatively and courageously, be decisive and communicate the vision of where we are progressing ahead and how we are going to get there. This approach is all about change.

Collective learning, KM and application of change are the key mechanisms through which architectural innovations are developed and featured in the discussions of these participants as they attempt to deal with the events that they encounter. Their architectural innovation is illustrated as a flexible mesh influenced by interaction with a changing environment within which they are motivated to continually learn, manage knowledge and practically execute new ideas in a geographically dispersed environment. Team collaboration and self-organisation support the organisation’s function and hierarchy functions as the organisation’s structure. In terms of Sullivan’s (1896, pp. 408, 409) law, ‘form ever follows function’, emergence serves as the group’s dynamic architectural innovation between structure and function. Learning is the application of lessons from an adaptive experience of the flows between structure and function to future situations building adaptive capacity for resilience (Edson, 2012). Therefore, self-organizing systems can co-evolve aiming for self-regulation and improved sustainability (Espinosa & Porter, 2011). The theme of organisational structure emerged during the focus group discussion and sense making and led to a discussion in the semi-structured and focus group interview. The category is linked closely to the other central themes of organisational characteristics and travel, responsibility, flexibility and resources and expressing emotion about passion and empowerment. Participants discussed terms associated with organisational structure, such as connect, direction, measurement, monitor performance, control and community. These properties relate to the formal organisation, systematic evaluation of member behaviour, learning behaviour and patterns of behaviour in KM and innovation processes in a geographically dispersed environment.

5.4.2.1

Architectural Innovation: Organisational Structure—Connect

The organisation is designed to meet the needs of members working at different sites at a distance and the head office (where the organisation works on developing an implementation strategy for working procedures) and students and members to whom they deliver services in geographically dispersed locations. It is apparent from the excerpts that the core strategic work of the organisation is best carried out by cross-functional teams. The solution is to design an organisation in which the teams are the performing units and the functional hierarchy exists to support the teams. M42: Yes, in our institute we have this international management office. We are a team of six people from executive to director level, and different levels of staff. So, they are engaged in identifying the potential lecturers and potential staff and sending them to […]. So, the lecturer who’s engaged for a term, for four months, is given a role of Acting Dean to handle all student administration, student issues, staff, the training of staff, handling seminars, and promoting the programmes while at […].

176

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

So, they do support knowledge sharing. When they manage a team of lecturers, they make use of different mechanisms. It is mostly face-to-face training through the use of technology, right from the blackboard using the Moodle. Those are repositories, where to look for the shed, the documents on the internet, how to use the teleconferencing tools, how to be engaged, how to engage students, and how to collaborate with lecturers. These are some knowledge sharing activities while our lecturers take up this leadership role while at […].

This participant located in Singapore highlighted connection as a motivating behaviour in the work that takes place between team members. This connection serves as a knowledge bridge is the connection that an individual builds between the business offices in geographically dispersed sites. The connection that builds a knowledge bridge is the bond and the connection making the long-term connections between individuals and team members in the geographically dispersed working environment. Therefore, it is apparent from this excerpt that knowledge development and transfer occurs at various levels, between individuals, from individuals to explicit sources, from individuals to groups, within groups, between groups, and from the group to the whole organisation. Active communication and KM practices through knowledge flows imply that critical knowledge is not spilled out, such as to competitors. Yet, it is evident that knowledge is utilised fully and put into practice to create value for organisational members. In the excerpt above by M42, the interaction described affects the way organisations operate and how their knowledge flows are formed. The discussion highlighted the social interaction of individuals within environments, where they share practices, problems and the emotions evolved in attempting to connect across hierarchical levels. Self-actualization and self-organizing behaviour is identified as a trigger for the collaboration, organising current knowledge in new ways making techniques to use existing knowledge, and putting into practice. Collaboration occurs as a selfactualization and self-organizing behaviour of organisational members that supports interaction, organising current knowledge in new ways creating procedures to use existing knowledge and practically implementing new skills in a geographically dispersed environment.

5.4.2.2

Architectural Innovation: Organisational Structure—Direction

Organisational structure also offers directions in setting up individuals to work together in doing tasks, claims Rapert and Wren (1998). Although this organisation demonstrates innovation and non-linearity, knowledge flows in the below excerpt could be perceived as a flow of knowledge between the sender and the receiver as a linear relationship. However, patterns and regularity emerge without any intervention of a central controller and thus lead to a collaborating behaviour exhibited by organisational members. Therefore, the casual relationships demonstrated in these discussions make it apparent that the collaborating behaviour is not the sum of the behaviour as its parts or multiples. Organisational members interact with each other, either face to face or across geographically dispersed sites.

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

177

F225: Lecturers consider being happy in this moral profession. Whichever level they are identified to be at, they feel they are learning, they are sharing knowledge, they’re transferring knowledge, learning new knowledge, and it is worth spending the time and effort, and going through the process. M25: Our lecturers’ commitment is closely connected to their work performance and their ability to innovate and integrate new ideas into their own practice, as well as having an important influence on students’ achievements and attitudes toward school So, we created a conducive environment so that they can be committed to the organisation, create a sense of community, affiliation, and personal care among adults within the schools, and allow integration between personal life and work life.

In these situations, collaborating behaviour for social learning reflects the phenomenon whereby the interactions develop into highly ordered relating patterns that were not designed or intended by members of the environment. Knowledge flows through circles of sharing from point to point between organisational members, leaders and self-motivated team members. New knowledge and practices arises from this connectivity of structures and these relationships. Structure, for this organisation then, has a duality which participants describe as meeting students’ needs and creating new ideas and implementing new skills between individuals and team members. From this participant’s discussion, it is evident that collaboration requires empowerment, yet it is also apparent that collaboration, self-organisation and empowerment are not the same thing. Knowledge flows could be seen as the direction of interaction of collaborating individuals and team members, and from this perspective, they influence the natural way of collaboration in communicating and building relationships in knowledge exchange. The structure of the organisation is seen as encouraging the flow of knowledge through its members. F223: Empowering others needs to start at the senior management level with less bureaucracy, with less control of schools.

Participants describe the knowledge flow direction in this organisation as relating to a shared understanding of the others’ issues and learning. Importantly, it appears that the learning of organisational members towards networking is flexible in this formal structure. Participants described the flexibility that exists at the collective level. There are formal structures that exist to support directions in setting up individuals to work together in doing tasks; participants state that they establish these to meet the needs of their students and organisational members. Organisational structure—through its processes and procedures and through empowering members—determines the direction of the knowledge flows.

5.4.2.3

Architectural Innovation: Organisational Structure—Measurement

Possibly the clearest indicator of the organisation’s focus on adaptability is through the measures it utilises to oversee member behaviour and outcomes. M11: We have an upfront assessment to obtain our desired performance improvements. We invest more time in identifying the problem. We spend time establishing a baseline

178

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

performance level before offering a solution. This enables us and management to calibrate this against the desired state and monitor progress along the way, using key assessment tools such as customized surveys, interviews with staff, or skill gap/performance analysis. Measurement of key performance indicators that support organisational members was a common theme in the discussion. F36: In this way, you can see that by sharing knowledge it is also a way to promote, because these lecturers or staffs willing to share knowledge are able to groom succession. And while they have created this succession plan, they are also able to hone their skills to the next level, higher up; this is a way for promotion and increases power as well. So, yes, this is what I have got to share.

This participant’s discussion reveals that measurements of performance, based on a comprehensive and complicated set of processes that support the members, relate to the connection between what the organisation requires and what individual members and their organisational members on the collective level require to operate within their environment. M23: They emphasise that not all performance can be addressed through training. A learning programme focusing on new process for success and increasing the level of performance is in place. Our leaders urge to identify how learning can contribute to the staff, lecturers and the institute from a strategic perspective and obtain a broader perspective of a particular situation before implementing solutions.

Self-management—which refers to the development of an individual’s personal skills and capabilities and personal way of acting within the environment—is evident in this organisation. A participant describes the formal training they receive as focused on those attributes of performance identified by the organisation as vital to maintaining flexibility in behaviour, including being able to adapt in a diverse environment. M42: Our boss, leaders, also focus on organisational performance encouraging well defined and assessed learning programmes that guide overall progress.

The organisation values on-the-job learning, a climate of learning and an organisational structure that is flexible and organic. It is apparent that the measurement of organisational members and the organisation’s effectiveness and potential to develop and grow is a key parameter. The multiplier effect (Holland, 1995, p. 25) occurs in this organisation as knowledge is passed from Singapore to its community of members in other locations, being transformed to adapt to the local environment and produce a chain of changes. The influence of the recycling effect—described by Holland (1995, p. 25) as the effective reuse or recycling of knowledge—is apparent because of the diverse set of knowledge flows and people flows in various directions.

5.4.2.4

Architectural Innovation: Organisational Structure—Monitoring Performance

Individuals act as knowledge facilitators for facilitating social learning activity of members. Participants discussed how individual knowledge facilitators help team

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

179

members to improve their competences through performance feedback and process monitoring (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). These associations, through frequent face-toface communications and reciprocal knowledge exchange, created a shared identity and a high level of trust within the organisation. Shared identity is constructed amongst participants as a natural performance of individual identities, developed around monitoring performance and control, and illustrates a need to maintain the appearance of natural and essentialised identities, a performance of identity that must be constantly re-performed. M25: Well, yes. Knowledge sharing worked well, but while doing this I have also observed that it is not that just because a lecturer has clocked in a certain number of years. Having stayed for 10 years, 15 years in a company doesn’t mean that he will be a good leader. F22: Staying long in a position, staying long in a profession, doesn’t mean that they can become good leaders. So, it should be someone they look for, even. F33: When I recruit a new lecturer, when I recruit a senior manager, we see the person, the skills in the person who is respected and who has these team bonding skills. F25: in our institute, we strongly believe that knowledge sharing can influence our development, our performance, and our effectiveness. And this has helped us as the competition (or the healthy competition) develops, the lecturers are able to develop innovation. They are able to be very creative.

These discussions insinuate that although organisational members are established within power relations, identities are instead viewed as natural and essential characteristics of these individuals; the fact that individualised identities are produced within power relations is obscured through the seemingly natural performance of identities that conform to discursive norms. In order to maintain the appearance of natural and essentialised identities, the author proposes that a performance of identity is constantly re-performed in this organisation. To confirm this illusion of demoralised characteristics, the following examples reveal that some participants’ constructions of leaders are confirming their performance. These examples make it apparent that some participants confirm the role of leaders, seeing it as encouraging support to organisational members. M12: So, we have job assessments. Well, every six months we have assessment performance and an assessment as well. M11: We have an upfront assessment to obtain our desired performance improvement. We invest more time in identifying the problem. We also spend time establishing a baseline performance level before offering a solution. This enables us and management to calibrate this against the desired state and monitor progress, along the way using key assessment tools such as customized surveys and interviews with staff or skill gaps/performance analysis.

Participant M11 identifies strategies for engaging leaders in the intricacy of the real world in order to gather their knowledge within the contemporary context. M42: Our bosses and leaders focus on organisational performance, encouraging well-defined and assessed learning programmes that guide overall progress. M23: They emphasize that not all performance can be addressed through training. A learning programme focusing on new processes for success and increasing the level of performance is in place. Our leaders urge us to identify how learning can contribute to the staff, lecturers

180

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

and the institute from a strategic perspective, and obtain a broader perspective of a particular situation before implementing solutions.

Thus, through the performance of identities, identities are re-signified. Performance is a discursive agential practice which demonstrates that power is always embedded within knowledge and discourse. In this organisation, it is apparent that performance provides a creative, innovative and inventive approach of viewing relationships between organisational members, technical infrastructure and their environments. Performance is a means by which members come to gain knowledge and as something which necessitates a different way of thinking about knowledge, as active and distinctly relational, and distinctive experiences make it possible to know more. Participants discussed evaluations of collecting and analysing members, and it became apparent that the evaluation process itself is a player in the complex emergence of behaviour. M35: The change is embedded top down as we share the same with our staff too. This is achieved by, for monitoring staff performance, progress, changing appraisal and reward systems and hiring staff with a commitment to empowerment and collaboration.

Change is construed as learning that creates opportunities and engages the organisation and its members in the process of adapting to new conditions. It is apparent in participants’ discussions that critical monitoring of practices and a continual process of evaluation against a goal are widely shared by a majority of organisational members. As M35 confirms this practice, the process of change extends between individuals and team members at geographically dispersed locations. Design, action, monitoring, evaluation, feedback and redesign become vital to effective organisational performance. M35: And similarly, at […] they also hold regular student/staff session meetings, staff meetings and such meetings. The records of meetings are also sent to Singapore for us to analyse, to help them in the areas where we can mentor and where we can guide them and share of knowledge freely.

It is evident in these discussions that performance actually produces new knowledge through which organisational members frame their relationships to their environment and putting current knowledge in new ways making techniques to use existing knowledge into practice. By recognizing the interaction between organisational members within and at the intra-organisational level, a more radical notion of learning, generating new knowledge and practically implementing new ideas is starting to develop. F27: They like whether there is success or whether there is failure in their job performance; lecturers like to share it. They like to share what they are doing, but very rarely like we can. They also see lecturers in order to maintain their position of importance. They tend not to share, but the leadership roles on programmes and modules are taken control of by full-time lecturers and full-time employees.

5.4 Introduction to Findings—Architectural Innovation

181

In these excerpts it, is revealed that groups are evaluating their role and recasting their goals through feedback and reflective team debriefing, which thus demonstrates the significant potential for development and flow of the resultant knowledge, learning and putting new skills into practice in this organisation.

5.4.2.5

Architectural Innovation: Organisational Structure—Control

F27: They like whether there is success or whether there is failure in their job performance, lecturers like to share. They like to share what they are doing.

Control is perceived in participants’ discussions to be managing and influencing characteristics. For many participants, control used on them through the organisation’s hierarchy is seen to empower attempts to achieve fitness within the dynamic landscape. M214: So, this leadership role will also lead to the quality control of a particular module, examinations, assessment control, supervisory control, and managing a team of lecturers who are teaching the same module. F223: Empowering others needs to start even higher at the senior management level, with less bureaucracy and less controls on schools. So, this is what we need to learn: contribute to changing how we would learn to help us to change the complete learning process.

The influence of control is illustrated and developed through discussions about the empowerment and leadership ownership offered to organisational members. Power is being geographically dispersed to organisational members. However, there is a possibility that as the power is evenly geographically dispersed among all the members, the organisation may disintegrate into a chaotic state if no one really exercises that power (Stacey, 1996). However, it is apparent that a clear hierarchical structure enables leadership. Participants’ discussions show that each participant and organisational member holds a position of relative power and influence in relation to others within the organisational environment. F24: As a head of school, I also learn how to manage when I learn about whom I am managing. I am being taught as well in this process.

Instead of acting as a central authority and exerting top-down control, the manager’s role is perceived to be facilitative and geared towards creating an open environment where people are allowed to question procedures. Schein (1992) indicated that innovative cultures are built around people who are proactive and problem oriented and who have a desire to improve and adopt information technology. F315: what I believe is to remain true to the professional standards and moral integrity. This is very important for me, and this is what I also expect my staff and I also influence them to stand-up for a change and be stronger and more certain with this proactiveness.

It is evident in these quotes by F24 and F315 that the job of the participants to direct the efforts of all the components towards the goals of the system is apparent, whereby new knowledge generated is seen as an outcome. However, it is also seen that

182

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

collective learning is an essential mechanism that motivates and drives the innovation process in this organisation. The organisational structure is highlighted by interconnectedness, unpredictability and individual and collective engagement. This organisation is inherently complex due to its socio-cultural environment, its interconnectedness and its geographically dispersed facilities. Understanding the leadership’s power influence on innovation is necessary precisely because it is generated through the very interconnectedness, unpredictability and instability characteristics of this organisation.

5.4.2.6

Architectural Innovation: Organisational Structure—Community

M317: So me, as a head of school, we could feel it is from the heart that you feel joy, you all felt self-satisfied, you are energized, and it is engaging. It is getting to get engaged connecting with others.

The community, flows of people, resources, experiences, hierarchy and knowledge flow structure characterise this organisation. According to Clippinger (1999, pp. 13, 14), the significance of flows is so great that the management of these flows is a major source of value creation in organisations. It is evident that the organisational structure supports the exchange of tacit knowledge through interactions, sharing and collaboration with other knowledge workers across internal organisational boundaries. M224: We promote to the community, we are engaged in community practices, community activities, to make a positive difference to the students and to their parents as well. M225: And we use our values to build bridges to the community and also across the world, global world, through our very good education curriculum which actually involves a wider community.

From this participant’s discussion, it is apparent that the formal organisational structure does not limit the reporting of information on the local level, thus encouraging the flow of information in a geographically dispersed environment. It is apparent that the organisational structure encourages knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer organising existing knowledge in new ways creating practices to use existing knowledge. The organisational structure also supports and offers direction in establishing learning, development of knowledge and executing best practices and mechanisms amongst its organisational members. The connection is apparent in these discussions about connect, direct, measurement and community and is significant to understanding the interaction between the learning of individuals and team members, making long-term connections between individuals and team members, and implementing practices that have been proven by experience to be valuable to individuals and team members in a geographically dispersed working environment.

5.5 Architectural Innovation Conclusion

183

5.5 Architectural Innovation Conclusion The concept of architectural innovation framed participants’ discussions about opportunities for learning, organising current knowledge in new ways making techniques to use existing knowledge and carrying out practices, use of knowledge that have been proven by experiences in one situation to be effective to individuals and team members in a geographically dispersed environment in this study. Participants’ discussions about their flexibility and their responsibility to predict end results because of their empowerment at work during travel to different work sites are presented in terms of organisational characteristics. The organisational characteristics impact the organisational structure, influencing learning, KM and innovation through individuals and team members in a geographically dispersed environment. Through these discussions, the nature of learning is highlighted as emergent, which involves searching for a holistic understanding utilizing creative intelligence. Knowledge is described as situated in the intra-organisational context and as emerging from the experiences of individuals and team members. Innovation is described as the practical implementation of processes and ideas in a geographically dispersed environment. Architectural innovation associates with the learning, KM and innovation process that these participants use to reorient with selected individuals and team members; exploit communication channels, knowledge repositories, knowledge filters, problem solving approaches; and geographically dispersed working environment designs, thereby linking both formal and informal interactions between the teams in a new way in a geographically dispersed environment. The following section presents the outcome of cultural innovation in relation to the learning, knowledge and innovation of participants in this study.

5.6 Introduction to Cultural Innovation This section presents the features of the socio-cultural environment that draw the emergence of learning, KM and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. The categories’ tacit values and overt values established within cultural innovation concept together with their properties are illustrated in Table 5.3 and are used to develop theory using participant discussions. In this study, cultural innovation reflects shared understanding experiences of the relation between individuals and other individuals as strong cohesive teams, as an ongoing process of new results, knowledge development, social learning and application of new ideas, methods and technologies in a diverse geographically dispersed environment. This chapter focuses on the socio-cultural environment to point to the emergence of OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. Following the chapters on social innovation and architectural innovation, the concept of cultural innovation is used to develop the theory from the participant discussions. Cultural

184 Table 5.3 Cultural innovation concept: hierarchy of themes

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation … Cultural innovation

Tacit values

Habits

Cultural innovation

Tacit values

Feedback

Cultural innovation

Tacit values

Values

Cultural innovation

Tacit values

Mechanisms

Cultural innovation

Overt values

Diversity

Cultural innovation

Overt values

Expectations

Cultural innovation

Overt values

Skills

Cultural innovation

Overt values

Innovations

innovation presents two categories—tacit and overt values—alongside the properties discussed by the participants about their habits at their geographically dispersed working environment upon receiving feedback that influences members to deliver new thinking with common values, ideas and processes, as they develop their skills with a diversity of organisational members and set expectations and confidently say we do adapt and adopt shared values and mechanisms to implement innovation. Participants discussed how they did their work with trust, passion and through empowering their organisational members, and their commonly held beliefs to provide support and trust and their confidence in their organisational members represented their ‘cognitive authority’ (Scott, 2008, p. 37). M220: That is the reason that lecturers are sent across different centres, sent to […] they feel empowered. M112: Yes we empower our staff … we give them leadership roles especially because we do cross department staff with support, we put them into team activities. M43: We have this commitment in knowledge sharing and we trust […] We wish for selfbelief and belief in others as well. We want to be part of the community. We want to feel the sense of belonging to the community and able to support each other.

Scott (2008) indicates that organisations must conform to rules and belief systems in order to survive and points to ‘cognitive legitimacy’ (p. 37). For instance, multinational corporations operating in different countries with varying institutional environments will face diverse pressures. Some of those pressures in host and home institutional environments exert fundamental influences on competitive strategy and human resource management practices that are susceptible to isomorphic pressures. Cognitive legitimacy is concerned with cognitive intelligence which may change. Statements such as ‘that’s how we do things here’ and ‘this is what everyone believes’ represent cognitive authority and express shared beliefs and mental models, which determine the dominant thinking in an organisation (Scott, 2008, p. 37). Whether an organisation is cognitively closed or open to the external world says something about the organisation’s ability to learn (Luhmann, 1995). Thus, communities of learning and knowledge production focus on mental space (Hernes, 2004), and Hernes (2004) suggests that social organisation emerges through the processes of drawing distinctions with the help of ‘mental boundaries’ (p. 80) that relate to ideas, understandings and beliefs.

5.6 Introduction to Cultural Innovation

185

With the mental boundaries of the current work practices, diverse organisational members were found to have a shared belief. Participants’ discussions revealed shared beliefs and common understanding. This is seen in the excerpt below, where individual participants, even though they have different practices related to their current work activities, learnt from one another in an agreeable manner. These quotes illustrate four participants making explicit their cognitive schema as they relate to work practices. Each individual acts purposefully, thinks rationally, and deals effectively with their environment. Thus, creativity by individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation (Goyal & Akhilesh, 2007). These management participants have indicated that the cognitive schema of the current work practices in the organisation are not structured, and they are open to interpretation by organisational members and not enforced. These excerpts reveal that local best practices that have been understood and used by a department have been found out to be useful to other geographically dispersed sites. Furthermore, it reveals social diversity that influences the characteristics of participants’ cognitive schema. M16: What is practiced and implemented in Singapore successfully is transferred to […] staff. We introduce best practices and encourage staff working on similar projects in Singapore or […] This allows us for intra-organisational networking opportunities and also allowing staff for socialization of tacit knowledge. F33: I organise informal and formal meeting sessions for applying new skills in their roles. M15: In my school of business, every staff is given the task of teaching something to someone as a matter of course F34: In school of technology & e-learning, I, once a week every ask every lecturer & staff to have a 30 min one on one meeting with me where the staff owns the agenda 100%. This is formally recorded.

This example reveals that although individuals are interacting in the same organisational system, their cognitions, personalities and local realities differ in this sociocultural environment. Additionally, specialization within organisations, such as the functional distribution of tasks and goals, leads to the formation of different groups and subsystems for efficiency reasons. Hence, this excerpt reveals that organisational elements in the socio-cultural environment are connected to the others but are also tightly connected to a group, and each group is loosely connected to other groups. This also shows that although an individual’s mental boundary in the existing situation may be broadly similar to the individual working next to them or at a distance, cognitive schema have the capacity to affect how an individual acts or responds. Moreover, this proves that understanding individual cognitive schema is imperative when it comes to the management of individuals, learning, knowledge development and performance. In the following example, the participants describe how their ideas were accepted along with the new knowledge that may have contributed to the organisation. Individuals and team members’ shared experiences are based on their actions and change is enacted by them with common understanding. Participants spoke about individuals and team members know how to physically apply their mental skill which is the knowledge in the real work setting.

186

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

F24: They share experience and learn from mistakes as well as successes. Good ideas are heard and acted on. M118: So, it helps us be thinking people and it also helps me to seek feedback on leadership practice.

Participants discussed their own cognitive schema, in this case as ‘their own practice’, as well as their collective cognitive intelligence. Opportunities for collective learning are perceived to be related to an individual’s cognitive schema, which are considered to have been constructed from an individual’s own experience. Therefore, their own bases of knowledge and concepts affect their actions and influence team members, as well as the collective itself. M25: Our lecturers’ commitment is closely connected to their work performance and their ability to innovate and integrate new ideas into their own practice, as well as having an important influence on students’ achievement in, and attitudes toward school. F315: I am a bit courageous. So, it is my own efficacy, so I am able to influence these characteristics as I learn from my leaders, to my team. F318: While Practicing what I preach, it’s my efficacy. So to understand my own first, understand others and it also helps me to confidently speak up. F226: It is learning to encourage and inspiring others.

The quotes from participants F315 and F226 above reveal that their cognitive schemas have the capacity to affect how members act, influence learning and sensemaking of the organisational members. It is evident that organisational members understand an individual’s ‘space of thought’ (Hernes, 2004, p. 70) in order to use the knowledge learned from them to shape the actions of individuals and team members. The success of the organisation is achieved through the organisational members’ influencing what an individual comprehends, as it is through an individual’s cognitive schema that they make sense and shape their response to correspond. Cognitive schemas are shown to exist within individuals, team members and the organisation. Thus, participants discussed their own space of thought and the other spaces of thought that exist within their collective and is illustrated in the Fig. 5.3.

5.6.1 Cultural Innovation—Tacit Values Shifts in cognitive schema are described as habits, values, feedback and mechanisms and are discussed within broader individual and collective experiences. An organisation’s cognitive schema is seen as the space of thought in an organisation that allows it to take action in its environment and weigh expectations of future occurrences. In this case, tacit boundaries relate to ideas, understandings and beliefs that focus on the learningprogramme to encourage individual and collective learning, generate knowledge, and apply their mental skill which is the knowledge in the geographically dispersed working environment. M23: They emphasize that not all performance can be addressed through training. A learning programme focusing on new process for success and increasing the level of performance

5.6 Introduction to Cultural Innovation

187

Fig. 5.3 Cultural innovation categories and coded data set

is in place. Our leaders urge to identify how learning can contribute to the staff, lecturers and the institute from a strategic perspective and obtain a broader perspective of a particular situation before implementing solutions.

Tacit boundaries related to collective cognitive intelligence assist the organisation in improving performance, and in this organisation, the performance and new knowledge generated is an outcome of social interaction. M318: They are looking into responsibilities rather than the local community looking at the global community. Like, for example, moving to […] and […] and then.

Karakaya and Yannopoulos (2008) develop the notion of how mental boundaries or cognitive schema used by incumbent firms influence their reaction to market entry through connected members of the organisation. The use of cognitive schema also applies to market entrants in the organisation. Market entrants’ experience, management attitudes and the selective perception process impact mental spaces. This reveals the use of cognitive schema when responding to market entry in global markets when organisational members develop defensive strategies. This organisation relies on managers’ mental skill regarding the firm’s domestic experience. These excerpts reveal that managers use their cognitive schema to make sense of industry trends, competitors’ actions and customer requirements and help avoid narrow interpretations from special interest groups or departments. The cognitive schema of organisational members defines what is important and unimportant, based on underlying values, shared interests and common understanding. M12: I constantly do competitor and intelligence competitor analysis, environment scanning. F23: Our leaders and bosses create a roadmap for us to keep our activities aligned with our objectives. A strategic learning programme guides our respective departments or schools and our institute through its overall strategic plan for growth.

188

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

F13: These activities are facilitated through sustained interactions among groups of diverse people. M14: As our leaders adhere to these practices, I then plan similar work and work the plan by designing our learning programmes with the end objective in mind. M33: We implement this in our respective departments and schools to build momentum, to calibrate the speed at which we develop individual skills and proficiencies with our institute’s ability to adopt, embed and deploy those skills consistently in our schools.

The organisation continually learns about its markets and disseminates the information generated about markets and competitors into the collective cognitive schema. These cognitive schemas enable members of the organisation to work together and communicate effectively in responding to market challenges, ensuring the coherence and timeliness of relevant strategies. Therefore, cognitive schema is fundamental to learning organisations, as they are vital in collecting and acting on market knowledge. This quote reveals that managers use their understanding and experience of their competitive environment to focus on certain information that they consider important for decision making and then develop new knowledge and measure their performance on the basis of their decision. F33: When I recruit a new lecturer or when I recruit a senior manager, we see the person, the skills in the person who is respected, who has this team bonding skills, and who is successful and understands the culture. M33: So, we choose this person to play the role as a leader or module leader, program leader or a guide or as they call it, a buddy program: a counsellor. This person will also be natural and is willing to commit the time and share their knowledge freely. So, this is one skill that we have observed as well.

Cognitive schemas filter through the entire organisation and influence managerial decision making. Therefore, by acting as a mediating mechanism and filtering incoming information about competitive factors, cognitive schema shapes managers’ thinking processes in determining their response to foreign entry, as quoted by M318. Mohrman and Lawler (2012, p. 44) developed the notion of culture existing through the collective minds of organisational members. For these participants, the memory of the organisation is maintained through recruitment practices. Organisational members claim that the organisation encourages change by supporting opportunities for learning, generation of knowledge, and innovative practice. Change is enacted by individuals and team members’ with common understanding. F26: So, there is open exchange of information and it is accessible for all of our lecturers, all of our co-workers, which is conforming and that is in direction and all of can see that overall culture is the sharing of knowledge, which comes from different communication climates that we already see.

The cognitive schemas cited by F2 above in F26 are tacit rules about the organisation which inculcate organisational members indirectly. Furthermore, in the excerpt below referencing knowledge flow between organisational members, the culture of the organisation is frequently described as a championed characteristic of shared experiences, collective beliefs, unwritten rules, and social interactions that affect the behaviour of individuals and team members in this organisation.

5.6 Introduction to Cultural Innovation

189

M232: I was really living inside the experience. I was learning the culture. I was sharing my experience. I was sharing my skills.

Participant M2 above in M232 describes culture within culture: the collective’s culture within the organisational culture is living inside the experience.

5.6.1.1

Cultural Innovation: Tacit Values—Habits

M229: I have the passion for deep learning so I tried to come out from my comfort zone, from my regular habits and ideas. So, out of passion, this helps me to connect to learn new things. F13: So, this helps improve performance improve, job satisfaction, the performance of our staff and commitment to their work as well. So, it is necessary, as me as a head of the school – and I also see it as a necessary part of the leadership development programme – to take part in such activities. M224: We promote to the community, we are engaged in community practices, community activities, and make a positive difference to the students and to their parents.

From these participants’ perspectives, a result of the fixed organisational cognitive schema is that organisational processes support organisational members in meeting the needs of their environment. In this way, the cognitive schema of the organisation is seen as supporting outcomes. It is evident that in this organisation, the individual shares through the process of team communication, which leads to the construction of new knowledge. As a consequence of the communication, some of the changes are rationalised and assimilated into the collective cognitive schema. This adjusted collective mental boundary can act as the framework for mutual reference and new knowledge development. These new cognitive schema support innovative knowledge development, and then the team becomes creative. F11: We align our institute and staff by investing in a structured learning programme with continued education for individuals over a long-term. This is to ensure that motivation levels remain high and staff feel empowered to challenge business as usual in the interest of practice improvement. Coupled with activities comprising our own research team, management journal publication, industry talks, community visits, business competitions and social enterprise events, the institute is well equipped to nurture globally competent individuals. F13: These activities are facilitated through sustained interactions among groups of diverse people. The challenges of this century will require a blending of core academic competencies with creativity and ethics.

Cognitive schema is in contact with feedback, and then opportunities for change are supported. Adequate collective feedback resulting from the connection between team members and collective levels means that they are learningfrom mistakes. Participants suggest that the focus is on learning and learning new activities to do better as they deal with the newness of their environment. It is evident that the mental space shifts as a result of feedback from the environment, which is motivating for these organisational members.

190

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

M228: In our institutes all the heads of schools are reflective through action learning. We are actively seeking feedback throughout all of our activities and all of our processes. F222: You know, we hold regular meetings to get responses and the focus is on learning: learning from our mistakes and learning from how we can do better.

5.6.1.2

Cultural Innovation: Tacit Values—Feedback

M34: I receive feedback from my … bosses, as I get feedback from the university partners. M12: I give feedback to my staff as well. M228: We are actively seeking feedback throughout all of our activities.

Participant discussions highlight a clear reality that guides the behaviour of individuals and team members in their interaction. Participants provide some insight into the structure of their cognitive schema, and their discussions illustrate these boundaries as dynamically changing in response to novelty. The process of engagement and listening calls upon the organisational members to view their own perceptions as tentative and open to the views of others. In these examples, learning has accelerated this engagement and listening process by allowing organisational members to become more critically aware of their own preconceptions, inconsistencies and defences that exist between their own espoused beliefs and actions. M116: I totally agree. It depends. It really depends like in my team: we are more targeted and we are more direct. Sometimes, yes, collaborative shared leadership also matters. Yes. If it had to be more relational, yes, I agree. So, as a moral profession, what I believe will be that we develop community with a forum for our discussion, meeting for our discussion and we hold regular meetings. We have both shared formal and informal leadership and we have action learning, as well as a generative approach to learning which differs. Like, you can see that it is being beyond means I look into the outside perspectives. I do regular environment scanning, not just looking into my own department but I also see a wider community. F219: we listen to the voices of students. We engage students as our co-creators in the learning process because we also learn from them.

It is revealed that the learning process directs attention towards academic development through seeking advice, listening, getting responses, sensemaking, developing as person, reflecting and sharing experiences. The real benefit of this process derives from organisational members’ increased desire to learn. Wenger, Trayner and De Laat (2011) state that the ‘ability to ask questions because one knows who to ask and who to trust can be as valuable as personal information or commitment’ (p. 20). Feedback-seeking behavioural mechanisms, as well as informal social networking methods, are necessary for knowledge sharing (Crowne, 2009, p. 136). In this study, from the feedback system perspective and from participant discussions, it is apparent that the intertwined relationships among leadership support, teamwork, flexibility, team bonding and collaboration lead to the notion that shared communications are a more important part of learning, KM and innovation system in a geographically dispersed environment than the learning processes itself.

5.6 Introduction to Cultural Innovation

191

Participants described the learning, KM and innovation system in a geographically dispersed environment as feedback seeking, receiving 360 degree feedback, accepting feedback and getting valuable feedback, which revealed that the performance of OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment as a whole is more than the sum of each department or each school’s learning , management of knowledge and innovation. This excerpt reveals that learning in the geographically dispersed working context is a process to acquire skills to enhance the ability to perform work related activities. The end result is the learning helps individuals and team members to work effectively and improve their performance as well as increase the organisational performance. Furthermore, this excerpt suggests that learning, managing knowledge and implementing innovation in the geographically dispersed working environment is socially constructed and conceived and is based on social interactions and discursive behaviour, which enable the emergent social construction through the organisation’s agents’ learning, KM and innovation processes and mechanisms. Feedback-seeking behaviour has meaning because it creates the collective and gives individuals direction. The quote reveals that these social constructions, which involve both plurality and diversity, emerge through the process of social interaction. This approach tells us that learning as a constructing or learning activity, understanding knowledge and implementing new skills in a geographically dispersed environment is important. In this case, learning, KM and innovation can be articulated and reframed as a process of activity through feedback. The organisation provides mechanisms for participation, dialogue and feedback to support outcomes and exhibit organisational members’ performance. M12: What are their weaknesses? Yes, I do look into these. I give feedback to my staff as well. At the same time, I provide a presentation to my bosses, to my superiors. M315: We listen to their voices and what the parents want. F222: You know, we hold regular meetings to get responses and the focus is on learning: learning from our mistakes and learning from how we can do better. F315: Our leaders challenge our thinking process and they ask us to listen more, ask more questions. So, our leaders encourage people, our heads of schools ask more questions so that we can come up with more answers and it does make us more involved.

Organisational members continuously develop and are aware of new spaces of learning, KM and innovation using the existing knowledge they currently have and sharing it with others in order to affirm or manage new and unknown dynamics. Members in this organisation attempt to use existing cognitive schema to make sense and systematise new conditions in order to recognise patterns of actions. Exposing individuals to the understanding of their own practice enables them to develop the confidence to construct new knowledge, allowing them to make contextual relevance while continuing to understand the environment of their own actions. M11: We have an upfront assessment to obtain our desired performance improvement. We invest more time in identifying the problem. We also spend time establishing a baseline performance level before offering a solution.

192

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

This quote reveals that strong communicators and supporters enabled the dissemination of correct messages of the necessary practices of the organisation and regular feedback on the effects of change: I give feedback … we listen to their voices … to get responses … listen more, ask more questions … This truly enables the sharing of best practice as well as practices to adopt, which is key in these discussions about exemplary practices themselves—anecdotes that give participants hope and incentives that help engage more organisational members in the process. Feedback-seeking behaviours have been considered an important tool for selfregulation, and similar to knowledge, they are thought to be an important resource in this organisation because they help individuals achieve goals. In this organisation, it seems that feedback-seeking behaviours are implemented without proper planning so that they are not viewed as another level of official procedure within the organisation. The feedback-seeking behaviour process has assisted participants in building trust with organisational members and in building awareness on what the purpose and use of the feedback will be. Trust was also found to have a positive influence on OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. The quotes below in M24 and F13 relate to receiving feedback and generating networks, where organisational members feel valued in the organisation, which helps to reduce turnover. This also shows that the organisation’s low turnover leads to nee knowledge within the firm and does not allow organisational knowledge to be ‘leaked out’ to competitors (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Thus, low turnover prevents organisational knowledge from being leaked to competitors, which may increase global performance issues. The quotes reveal positive relationships between social capital and firm performance. F24: I understand my staff personality and they are aware of mine. I trust my staff and treat them all fairly. In this manner, staff and lecturers take responsibility and support one another. They share experience and learn from mistakes as well as successes. Good ideas are heard, and acted on. M24: I can also add that it reduces employee turnover, especially in the lecturer profession. F13: So, this helps. even performance improves job satisfaction, performance of our staff and commitment to their work as well.

5.6.1.3

Cultural Innovation: Tacit Values—Values

M225: And we use our values to build bridges to the community and also across the world, global world, through our very good education curriculum which actually involves a wider community. M232: I was really living inside the experience. I was learning the culture. I was sharing my experience. I was sharing my skills through seminars, conducting simple workshops, attending to conferences. So I had the opportunity to attend conferences, and I value the process and also give time to it also.

Participants describe the organisation’s cognitive schema as encouraging critical perspectives on organisational strategy. Organisational knowledge and systems dynamically change within the organisation and are ingrained in the organisation’s

5.6 Introduction to Cultural Innovation

193

ways of doing. The notion that activities and processes should be improved is supported in this environment. The collective’s mental space influences organisational members to adopt their own mental space—both tacit and explicit. This is described as encouraging and promoting participants’ adaptation in response to environmental feedback. Common goals in the teams are evident, and organisational knowledge is accepted as being continually evolving. It is obvious that this leads to openness of the system being maintained, as change to the cognitive schema is an accepted part of the team behaviours so that the processes in place are continually updated. Thus, it is evident from this excerpt that cognitive schema are developing learning; to acquire skills and knowledge to enhance the ability of individuals and team members to perform work related activities; and putting new skills into practice, leading to a shared experience and understanding of their goal and objectives. F226: It is learning to encourage and inspire others. So, while I do this to the students, it is also encouraging to my fellow colleagues. It’s also influencing. It’s also inspiring my fellow colleagues in developing skills to lead, to empower, to be a mentor, to be a good buddy, to be a good coach. And mentor others to do the same. M24: Lecturers are passionate about seeing growth in their students. F35: We have academic council meeting sessions where we discuss about new programme strategies for teaching and strategies to enhance student learning.

5.6.1.4

Cultural Innovation: Tacit Values—Mechanisms

Du Plessis (2007, p. 25) claims that KM can facilitate collaboration as a mechanism to foster innovation through the provision of technological platforms and tools to enable knowledge sharing within knowledge-sharing communities, such as online discussion forums. The excerpt below reveals that the social engagement and exchange of experiences of organisational members, the recombination and reuse of practices applied to a distant site at an intra-organisational level, and the political processes instilled in the organisation with the use of technology as shared portals and drives offer new and unique solutions to issues. F36: Department heads with the help of lecturers as managers, senior managers help to document the cases, lessons learnt, the cause of knowledge sharing and store them in our shared network resources and via black board too. This becomes and serves as a ‘peoples’ directory and we are able to capture all information. F32: It improves their efficiency to obtain new technologies because while sharing knowledge, while using technologies like moodle, blackboard, Wikipedia, wikis, Facebook, using the Skype, using mobile phones, using video conferencing, setting up WebEx. It develops innovation and strategies, the products that we are using, the different mechanisms that we are using. M46: As you can see that our technological infra-structure is quiet updated with video conferencing facilities, board rooms for conferences and meetings, shared networks, black board for managing our content etc. M218: These university programs that university professors, lecturers also communicate and provide some staff development activities, teaching and learning practice. They share it with

194

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

us through their moodle. And they also use WebEx for any video conferencing or any staff training purposes as well.

This organisation heavily relies on members to learn, create, share, disseminate, and manage knowledge and innovate, which makes explicit the importance of connectivity between employees and other stakeholders in the organisation. The organisation also seeks to ensure opportunities for employees to communicate with one another on an as-needed basis. It provides communications and collaboration tools to all employees, including related technology infrastructures. Participants affirm the importance of information and knowledge disclosure to the organisation’s members. Social processes of engaging members formally and informally with the technology infrastructure are overt in this organisation. Mechanisms linking learning, KM and innovation are shared by participants, revealing the processes to ensure learning mechanisms, knowledge creation, sharing, gathering and implementation within these collaborative forums. It is clear that organisational members’ learning behaviour, tacit knowledge is an essential element in the innovation process. Learning, KM and innovation mechanisms play a crucial role in ensuring the sharing of tacit knowledge in aiding other members’ learning and problem solving in collaborative environments, as well as the codification of tacit knowledge into an explicit format to enable implementation in different contexts in geographically dispersed sites. Organisational members use learning, KM and new activities and tools, such as environmental scanning, benchmarking, intranets, organisation-wide databases and repositories and forums, as well as social media communities to acquire knowledge and to make it accessible at the intra-organisational level. Furthermore, it is evident that when individuals and team members are using their mind for common understanding learning emerges, new knowledge is generated, and new skills are acquired to make direct contributions to the practical execution of innovation and to ensure sustainable advantage. OL, KM, and innovation processes assists in creating tools, platforms and processes for tacit knowledge creation, team members’ shared experience and leverage at the collective level, which plays an important role in the execution of new skills and practices. It is obvious that the organisation provides a focus on the value of tacit knowledge and assists in creating an environment for learning, tacit knowledge creation, sharing, managing and leverage to take place causing team members’ shared understanding. Learning, KM and innovation processes also provide platforms for tacit knowledge sharing, such as formal and informal sessions amongst its members. The organisation also facilitates tacit knowledge sharing across intraorganisational boundaries through ensuring that organisational members with relevant expert knowledge have opportunities to share their tacit knowledge through collaboration. Cognitive schema provides a sharing framework without closing out the collaborative networks and systems that continue new knowledge development and executing practices with strong cohesive team members. It is evident in this organisation that cognitive schema promote and support learning, KM and innovation in teams by

5.6 Introduction to Cultural Innovation

195

their working habits using various mechanisms, providing feedback and applying common values so that new knowledge is synthesised based on needs, circumstances of practices, habits and activities.

5.6.2 Cultural Innovation: Overt Values Organisational members’ attempts to put solutions in place in repositories – tools that develop organisational memory – are based on explicit and overt decisions, which mean using the mechanism of diversity to influence others to resolve problems in dealing with meeting other organisational members’ and students’ needs. Many participants, particularly those working directly with team members and students, rely on their cognitive schema to assist without being forced (as we do) to produce innovation. For people working with students, this means using their own fairly simple rules to make decisions about the actions they take in meeting the needs of students. F226: It is learning to encourage and inspiring others. So while I do this to the students, it is also encouraging my fellow colleagues. It’s also influencing. It’s also inspiring my fellow colleagues in developing skills to lead, to empower, to be a mentor, to be a good buddy, to be a good coach and mentor others to do the same. M24: Lecturers are passionate about seeing growth in their students. F35: We have academic council meeting sessions where we discuss about new program strategies for teaching, strategies to enhance student learning.

Participants speaking about we do with confidence and commitment is reflected in their work, and they often acted on their own cognitive schema. In spite of having formal learning procedures in the geographically dispersed working environment to meet student needs, participants give priority to cognitive schema to resolve needs. In this case, the participant talks about maintaining focus on the student learning experience on the basis of their cognitive schema. The sense of acting according to a personal framework of what is right is not restricted to those working with students, and similar experiences gained are shared amongst other organisational members. The participants spoke of attempting to handle difficult students and dealing and handling different types of students by finding new ways and doing their jobs well. F39: Even managing the Gen-Y type of students is a challenge and contrary like part-time students will come that reach experience, but with poor academic skills. So, that will be who are basically baby boomers and Generation X. M39: Managing students, managing lecturers to deal with different type of students, the teaching skills required to handle different types of students.

196

5.6.2.1

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

Cultural Innovation: Overt Values—Diversity

A mix of people from various cultural backgrounds and functional areas (Von Krogh et al., 1997), the existence of diverse perspectives and backgrounds (Peltokorpi, Nonaka & Kodama, 2007) and the existence of inter-organisational communities formed by people with different mind sets and mental models (Von Krogh, Kim & Erden, 2008) are assets for an organisation that can be tapped into to combine the diverse knowledge of its members—what Nonaka and Von Krogh (2009) refer to as the ‘organic concentration’ (p. 636) of knowledge. M319: We also see that for equity and diversity as well, so it is between partnerships, educations, be it in different locations so we set expectations for getting engagement. M310: Yes, it is a teamwork. It is a collaborative work. M112: Yes we empower our staff.

Stacey (2003a) is clear that organisational creativity is dependent upon diversity. He argues that ‘[if] an organisation is a pattern of talk [relational constraints], then an organisation changes only in so far as its conversational life [power relations], evolves … creativity, novelty, and innovation are all the emergence of new patterns of talk and patterns of power relations’ (p. 363). Stacey (2003a) states that in relation to the emergence of new patterns, ‘the key to transformation is diversity’ (p. 375). M28: Networking sessions, amongst full-time lecturers, formal/informal, and having informal get together. F38: These discussions are not only held within the same department, as we are co-located in the same room and level so we get to chat and talk informally too. The same might also be shared during formal meeting sessions.

Free flowing conversation will allow for a diverse range of sometimes conflicting themes to emerge (Simpson, 2007). However, it is apparent that a diversity of ideas is allowed to surface in this organisation because many members were able, at different times, to participate in influencing the free flowing conversation within the group. This is the basis of the creativity that emerges in self-organizing processes of communicating. The participants demonstrated a capacity for learning, KM and continuous improvement in a geographically dispersed environment. The ability of organisational members to adapt within the collective, take on roles or adopt new characteristics to improve the collective’s situation is highlighted in this excerpt. Here, these two participants describe the role of diversity in the collective and the survival of the collective and, most importantly, the emergence of novelty. M219: It is easier for lecturers, senior managers and heads to communicate; it is easier for them to communicate with newer practices. They are able to build close working relationships, especially those who travel to […] as they are co-located. F214: They build a better working relationship and they understand their culture. It is twoway. Anyway, both! … they learn from each other. M224: They are willing to accept feedback and outcomes of their performance. M42: We do get regular feedback. We share our teaching practices. We share the difficulties and the fun part of managing our students compared to our own campus students, so yes.

5.6 Introduction to Cultural Innovation

197

M118: This is developing and this sense is developing in the leader and it is influencing the rest by teaching and learning. So, it helps us become thinking individuals, and it also helps me to seek feedback on leadership practice. So, while taking up these distance learning and overseas assignments, it also helps us to share knowledge and seek feedback on leadership practice. We are empowered. We do this with passion. We are true to ourselves. We are true to our beliefs. We are also directly correlating to the well-being of other learners as well.

McElroy (2000) claims that ideas and patterns of behaviours, which enhance social innovation capital and its ability to adapt successfully, are stabilised and repeated; those ideas that do not pass the test are rejected in favour of radically new ones ‘almost as if a cosmic game of trial-and-error were being played’ (p. 196). While doing such trial and error within a socio-cultural environment—through social media interaction initiatives amongst the organisational members—it has been possible to strengthen the feedback loop and then improve it. Through strengthening such feedback loops, it is evident that these initiatives foster interdependent interactions within this organisational environment and enable change dynamics, which in turn leads to more responsiveness and more efficient selection of the most valuable, novel and creative ideas and solutions. From this excerpt, it is obvious that new experiences at a distance are a means in the collective learning cycle. Members gain new experiences in this organisation through accessibility of feedback, external experiences and diversity in work. These initiatives not only enable adaptive dynamics to foster co-creation of learning and creativity, they also facilitate organisational members in channelizing the flow of learning and creativity from adaptive structures to architectural structures. Through social media and other e-learning media initiatives, organisations provide the tools to different actors of value networks to participate in the process of value co-creation and spontaneous change, and thereby allow them to be agents of innovation systems. Therefore, it is clear that these initiatives increase the number of agents, the levels of interdependent relationships and the heterogeneity of skills and outlooks in innovation systems; these, in turn, increase overall diversity and innovation in a value network context. M228: In our institutes, all the heads of school over here are reflective through action learning and we are actively seeking feedback throughout all of our activities and all of our processes. M34: Oh, yes, because we give 360 degree feedback. I receive feedback from my leaders, from my bosses, and I get feedback from the university partners. I get feedback from our students, we receive and get it so it is two-way communication of giving 360 degree feedback. M29: And those lecturers who are really IT savvy, because in today’s work many offers are to use mobile technology. There are many free services that they make use of and facilities they make use of – what’s that, all for free SMS, so my […] colleagues can interact with me or use Face book. These are some activities that we can see.

Holland (1995, p. 27) suggests that when an agent is removed from a system, the system will rapidly respond with a cascade of adaptations, resulting in a new agent that fills the ‘hole’ formed by removing the agent in the first place. The greater the diversity in the potential substitutes, the better the individual that can be found to fill the hole. Diversity, therefore, offers better possibilities of maintaining the existing

198

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

level of operation in this organisation, and it is apparent that learning, knowledge flows and continuous improvement are in an important position in this process. F215: And it is a very good practice that most of our lecturers … we are also able to identify the mentee’s skill gap as well as address the behaviours of these new lecturers or even experience lecturers. So, their behaviours can be changed, improved or removed and this is what we find. M110: And this mentoring, we find that it is not necessarily to be used on the first day of the lecturer’s job. And we, here in our institute, follow this throughout our tenure and be it while we are located in Singapore, or while we travel to […]. M222: While we travel to […] to teach, our lecturers are also learning newer skills. At any stage of a lecturer’s career, this knowledge sharing, this mentoring and training helps them to understand their career path and they are also able to navigate the route to their respective professional goals. F311: From a mentee point of view or our co-lecturers, our colleagues also receive greater knowledge, which we see. This contributes to their career success within the organisation, within their institute there.

This excerpt above clearly illustrates the close relationship between members’ collaboration, multi-lateral communications, diversity, innovation, social learning, knowledge development and innovation within the collective. This provides an example of the influence of learning collaboration on the organisation’s knowledge and innovation. This also indicates that the diversity of its organisational members at geographically dispersed locations and the richness of resources for interaction amongst organisational members are important sources for and an important result of sustainability.

5.6.2.2

Cultural Innovation: Overt Values—Expectations

Holland (1995, p. 33) describes the redefinition of internal models as critical to looking ahead in changing environments, acknowledging that current models which meet the need of the environment are described as encouraging and influencing within this organisation. For these participants, the ability to predict the future means that the organisation is able to predict gaps in the knowledge it holds. As a result, participants feel that the organisation is able to respond to its own anticipated needs or those of its clients. M112: We do cross department staff with support, we put them into team activities. F16: Our leaders articulate their vision in a clear appealing manner, they explain how to attain the vision, lead by example and empower us to achieve the vision.

Yes, I agree that our leaders promote new possibilities and generate compelling vision of the future. They are the source of inspiration and visibly model appropriate behaviours. Their goal is change and their energy, enthusiasm and vision open up new and exciting possibilities within our institute. Participant experiences offer examples of the structure of cognitive schema, their orderly structure and patterns of relationship. Cognitive schema is shown to be held

5.6 Introduction to Cultural Innovation

199

at individual, collective and organisational levels; and the relationship between the levels is clear. Individual cognitive schema is shown to be building blocks as individuals and team members gain experience of organisational cognitive schema that affects local and geographically dispersed behaviour. The contribution of these individual and geographically dispersed models to the organisation’s schema is evident, as participants describe it. It is also evident that hierarchies support the organisation and help increase the predictability of the organisational system by clearly identifying creativity and innovation as building blocks of agility. It is recognised that individuals are an essential element of organisational systems: at the most basic level, there is an existential need for organisational systems to interact with their environment to acquire these building blocks in order to achieve a common goal and meet the learning needs of organisational members.

5.6.2.3

Cultural Innovation: Skills

Hernes (2004) and Heiskanen and Heiskanen (2011) argued that the original, shared spirit of the cognitive schema formed in the early stages may still prevail among an original group of organisational members, and at some later stage, new social and cognitive schema is required in order to keep the innovative spirit alive and renew their skills. The excerpts below (M13 and F31) reveal that new opportunities and ideas are sparked by cognitive schema and by shaping members’ properties and rules, for example, by staffing teams or by allocating different resources to its organisational members. This is in accordance to the notion that innovation implies an active search for new opportunities (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011). The schema in individuals and team members reflect both the mental and physical actions involved in understanding and assist in interpretation. These quotes below reveal that diversity and heterogeneity are achieved by the relationships between agents and by the organisational members as internal agents’ or individuals’ relationships with the outside world. In this organisation, diversity is seen as a positive impulse from the orientation of members keeping abreast of their skills to adapt to the design of its processes and structures in new ways. Changes have helped this organisation to transform from existing patterns to completely new ones. The space of new possibilities allows the organisation to establish new work procedures. F31’s quote pointed to the change process of the whole organisation. It is obvious from these participants’ discourses that participation and involvement of organisational members are keys to success and that geographically dispersed leadership and empowerment at different levels within the organisation becomes important. M13’s quote point to change is enacted by leaders with common understanding. M13: My leader, our leaders in our department – in our institute, we can see that they work in a global society. It’s no longer just in Singapore. They are looking into responsibilities rather than local community looking at the global community.

200

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

F31 Like for example moving to […], and […] and then they have a wider focus not only as a global community but also human values looking into the relationship of people and family. This has changed the focus to human communities strengthening of human values and also to ensure that education is for a good reason, for a good purpose. And we also see that for equity and diversity as well, so it is between partnerships, educations, be it in different locations so we set expectations for getting engagement of students from different culture, from different countries and all are getting similar education. So that was again equity.

This excerpt below (M36) reveals that it is the novelty of a newcomer to the group that leads to innovative outcomes. The added diversity created by the introduction of a new agent into the group is discussed by the participants. M36: Our leaders are able to carry out strategic tasks and once we attend such training sessions, such committees, we are also able to carry out strategic tasks and transfer the knowledge to develop an effective environment within our schools. And when we are involved in any projects, we are also formed in the matrix groups and we also share knowledge across different schools and different departments.

Individual members and institutional actors interact in ways that create new opportunities to create new programmes and outcomes. Individuals process external events and information in ways that are unique to the individuals concerned and therefore arrange interlinks between problems and solutions and help create windows of opportunity. M12: The other activities which I model myself is I constantly do competitor, intelligence competitor analysis, environment scanning to see how my school, my models, my programs. What are my competitors providing? What are their strengths? What are their weaknesses? Yes, I do look into these. F35: we discuss about new program strategies for teaching, strategies to enhance student learning.

This newcomer’s action in prompting willingness to contribute to cognitive schema that encourage innovation; the participant M3 pointed to this during the coding exercise as well. M312: But new staff comes in with newer perspectives.

New people and ideas can cause disturbances in the dynamics of the learning, KM and implementation of processes, bringing about further adjustment and adaptation that change the existing dynamics. M219: It is easier for … to communicate, easier for them to communicate with newer practices. They are able to build close working relationships … they are co-located.

Participants undergo change as they are acted upon by phenomena and events of interactions between internal elements. M314: Absolutely right. I’m not being forced to take part in any such activities because I find it might become counterproductive what I’m trying to achieve. To me, I am very happy. I consider this as a professional and integral part of my job. And this helps me to determine my needs. It also builds support within the team. I’m happy to have the right mentor and the right bosses so that the same culture, the same practices, I’m able to inculcate to my staff.

5.6 Introduction to Cultural Innovation

201

When diversity and connections within and outside the environment are maximal, self-organisation and a new shared process emerge. Diversity in individual models and power bases is a common feature of organizing and a vital component of the process of developing learning, KM and innovation. Learning maximises diversity by drawing on the distinctive qualities of individual social agents as a basis of identifying balances that can address their common agendas. Diversity is perceived to be a function and a process of the organisation.

5.6.2.4

Cultural Innovation: Overt Values—Innovations

It is evident from this excerpt that shifting power relationships did occur and enabled the broad engagement of staff and open, free-flowing patterns of interaction in collaboration. A larger and more diverse group of employees came to play leadership roles. Participants recognised capable members and encouraged them to join the effort and offered to share their power and responsibility. This process demonstrates that power arises through a relationship, co-created by those in the relationship, which illustrates the view of power advocated by Stacey (2003b), in which shifts in power are associated with novelty. M33: This person will also naturally, is willing to commit the time and share knowledge freely. So, this is one skill that we have observed as well. M112: Emmm … Yes we empower our staff. Okay, we give them leadership roles especially because we do cross department staff with support, we put them into team activities so they have a role play of being a leader while they travel and especially geography disposition on different location such as. F217: Okay, they are also able to take up leadership roles for a period of time. And if you ask me about shortcomings, yes, especially collaboration exists. F35: I empower my staff with key responsibilities in key projects.

Many small individual performances and actions of collaborative members suggest that shifts in power are related to change and the emergence of new patterns of interactions. And because the results of these shifts depend on how others react, leadership emerges from the interactions themselves. Both change and the emergence of new patterns are a result of self-organizing processes. It is critical to note the context and limitations of the unit helper’s power and the role of organisational elites—participants allow others to feel powerful and feel that their power is legitimate. Those in positions of power increasingly recognise the ability of other employees to make decisions; these employees accept the responsibility, but they also accept that there are limits to their empowerment. It is apparent in this excerpt that non-managerial employees now have a louder and stronger voice and that management does listen. All have a voice, but all voices are not equal. The collaborative effort of a diverse set of organisational members combating as adversaries in a complex organisational setting offers persuasive evidence regarding what constitutes leadership and how it can be practiced. Leaders

202

5 Findings: Social Innovation, Architectural Innovation …

recognise organisational members’ actions, using interconnections as another avenue for tuning information flow, diversity of action, anxiety and power differential. M32: Working with others is a very, very enjoyable experience. It is to see with a fresh pair of eyes, getting new ideas, getting new perspectives. So you’re getting new friends, getting new cultures, new mentors, new buddies, who are more committed colleagues, who are more passionate in their work. That is most key important, who are more committed in their work, in sharing knowledge, passionate in sharing knowledge.

People gain new insights and generate new thinking in the processes of interaction and conversation with others. The stimulus of new information and the diversity of people are key ingredients. In the excerpt below, relationships and interactions that result in achievement of the network purpose are the aim of the participant, and important behaviours include facilitating and furthering interaction among participants from regular routines, developing new rules and procedures of interaction, changing the positions, relations and roles of participants, helping the network become self-motivating, and engendering effective learning, managing knowledge and implementing innovative practices among organisational members. Learning, KM and innovative processes comes into play in networks. M229: I have the passion for deep learning, so I tried to come out of my comfort zone and from my regular habits and ideas. So, out of passion, this helps me to connect to learn new things.

This excerpt reveals a constant dynamism and the appearance of new phenomena. The two ideas of ‘global community’ and ‘human values’ worked in tandem to bring about greater diversity in providers and greater diversity in the students attending and achieving education. M318: And then they have a wider focus not only as a global community, but also human values looking into the relationship of people and family. M319: We set expectations for getting engagement of students from different cultures and countries, and all are receiving a similar education.

5.7 Conclusion The properties and mechanisms enabling learning, knowledge development and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment are discussed. Participant discussions about learning, sharing knowledge and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment and through social interaction established fresh language in social innovation. The experiences and communication mechanisms with learning between individuals and team members across geographically dispersed environment are combined and used to create new tacit and explicit knowledge. Learning, managing knowledge and executing innovation more generally also occurs through architectural innovation, as previously discussed. The features that contribute to creativity and new knowledge with members’ common understandings are discussed alongside

5.7 Conclusion

203

those that enable creativity through cultural innovation. These properties and mechanisms reveal that organisational knowledge is social and geographically dispersed in the system of ongoing practices in the organisation, which is relational and mediated by artefacts, examples and experiences. Organisational knowledge is dynamic and contextual, in that it is always rooted in a context of social interaction amongst organisational members, and it is acquired through organisational members’ engagement and social interactions using formal and informal communication mechanisms. The following chapter presents an integrated discussion of the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation in individuals and team members in a geographically dispersed environment surrounding the emergent themes contributing to an overall understanding. Fresh insights into the emergence, connection and experiences related to learning, KM and innovation in individuals and team members working among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation are discussed in some detail.

Chapter 6

Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

Abstract In this Chap. 6, the findings are discussed with reference to the literature, and the three major themes depicted in the findings are elaborated upon. Furthermore, the findings are compared and contrasted with published theoretical assumptions about the factors, characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed environment. In this chapter, innovation has been fully explained in terms of how dynamic competitive systems can exhibit intricate interactions in organisations and social systems. The experiences of learning, KM and innovation practices related through participants’ discourse are presented first. Following this, the ways in which the experiences reflect collaborated learning, knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities adopted for managing knowledge through the social interaction activities of organisational members for practically implementing innovation are discussed. This chapter also provides a brief overview of the implications of the findings for OL, KM, and innovation facilitation in the organisation. Finally, this chapter brings to a close with an analysis of the integrated model used to make significance of the findings.

6.1 Introduction This chapter addresses the research question: ‘What are the factors that facilitate the relationship of organisational learning, knowledge management, and innovation in the geographically dispersed individuals and team members?’ The research question is addressed under the title ‘A Theory of the factors that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM, and Innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members’. The important conclusions from the study are drawn from the research question responses, which construct the theory surrounding the themes. This chapter develops the integrated discussions about the factors that enable OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. The discussions of the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members and in making sense of these findings are offered in this chapter through the participants’ experience. The summary of the themes below in Table 6.1 are explained in detail in Sect. 6.1 in this chapter. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0_6

205

206

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

Table 6.1 Summary of themes Themes

Discipline

Indicators

Social relationship and networks OL, KM and Innovation facilitates OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team

Individuals learn, manage knowledge and implement innovation with and from team members in a geographically dispersed environment Individuals connect, manage knowledge and achieve innovation with team members on the basis of a shared environment OL, KM, and innovation perceived as both individual and collective in a geographically dispersed environment Individuals and team members interact, manage knowledge and implement innovation to increase effectiveness

Knowledge sharing mechanisms OL, KM and Innovation and activities facilitates OL,KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team

Organisational Characteristics influence OL, KM, and Innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members OL, KM, and innovation emerges as a result of architectural dynamics OL, KM, and innovation emerge through practice Performance metrics facilitates OL, KM, and implement innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members

Social cognitive schema among members of a geographically dispersed team facilitates emergent learning, KM, and innovation

OL, KM and Innovation Cognitive constructivism of geographically dispersed individuals and team members define OL, KM, and innovation in an organisation Collective diversity enables OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members Tangible learning needs enables OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members

6.1 Introduction

207

This chapter presents the major themes as presented in Table 6.1 and categorised in the review of the literature in Chap.2, discussing participants’ learning, KM, and innovation experiences in the geographically dispersed environment. The themes that emerged from the participant discussions, which are analysed in Chaps. 4 and 5 in this study, suggest an innovation framework. This framework is in line with the three major themes around which OL, KM, and innovation converge. These central themes: social relationship facilitates individual and team members’ learning, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team; knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities facilitates OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team; social cognitive schema among members of a geographically dispersed team facilitates emergent learning, managing knowledge, and innovation are drawn together. The central themes are one bridge that integrates the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation used in this study. As a result, the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team. The detailed analysis of the findings of this study is presented in Chaps. 4 to 5, and in this chapter, Sect. 6.1, highlights the factors that may influence learning, the way that knowledge is managed and used, and the creation and sharing of ideas and implement innovation processes and ideas at work in geographically dispersed environment. In this study, the collective relationships and networks, organisational structures and characteristics, tacit and overt values facilitate OL, development of knowledge by individuals and team members and innovation in the geographically dispersed. The emerging theory adds to the body of knowledge involving the intertwinement between OL, KM, and innovation alongside the detailed areas in which these three disciplines are related. The chapter then progresses to describe the interrelationship of OL, KM experiences and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members and develop an integrated model (Fig. 4.1) of OL, KM, and innovation. This section presents the theoretical contributions of the book, which are to aid in understanding the factors that enable OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members and to provide the grounded theory methodology for the practical implementation of innovation in an educational organisation. This chapter encapsulates OL, KM, and innovation, within one frame and develops an integrated model of the factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. This study derives its findings from the participant descriptions of their OL, KM, and innovation practices and experiences in the organisation geographically dispersed across the globe. The discussions are constructed within organisational discourses which frame and form them.

208

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship of OL, KM, and Innovation in Geographically Dispersed Individuals and Team Members The findings of this research allowed the author first to explore the question—What are the factors that facilitate learning, KM, and innovation experiences of participants in geographically dispersed individuals and team members? Access to the organisational individuals and team members—and the interrelatedness of their experiences—helped develop well-ordered categories. The categories of OL, KM, and innovation are intertwined, providing new and fresh insights into the features of experiences in a geographically dispersed environment. This chapter discusses and attempts to provide a viewpoint in which the social, architectural and cultural innovation factors and mechanisms that facilitate learning, KM, and innovation experiences in the geographically dispersed environment is explored in a more integrated and comprehensive way discussing the major themes as illustrated in the below Fig. 6.1. Extant literatures suggest that successful knowledge sharing involves extended learning processes (Ahiauzu, Ntayi, Kamya, 2011; Kennedy, 2010; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013). The learning experiences of this study’s participants draws attention

Fig. 6.1 Summary of themes

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

209

to collective learning in a geographically dispersed environment through social interaction (Hansen, 2002; Reagans & McEvily, 2003), learning orientation (Crossan et al. 1999), management support (Vera & Crossan, 2004), empowerment (Alsop et al., 2005), motivation (Osterloh & Frey, 2000) and trust (Argote et al., 2003) as presented in Chapter 4. These are the learning experiences in a geographically dispersed environment influence and characterise the context for learning, the management and development of new knowledge, and for putting new knowledge into practice. Participants’ discussions highlight the processes through which they learn to adapt to their geographically dispersed work environment that contributes to the success of the team members’ learning experiences spread across geographical boundaries. Similarly, the success of the organisation is determined by individuals’ and team members’ experience and understanding the flow of knowledge between various groups and departments, and practically implementing innovation. The participants discussed knowledge-management mechanisms and how they are influenced by individuals, team members, organisational structures and organisational characteristics. Individuals’ and team members’ personal characteristics—including positive emotions and their motivation to work closely with geographically dispersed colleagues around the collaborative nature of learning—development through individual and collective engagement with the organisation in a dynamic environment, and the iterative development of knowledge, and executing new practices through various interactions with diverse members at an intra-organisational level are evident in participants’ discussion. Participants’ description of their learning experiences obtained during focus group discussion and interviews revealed their motivation to work together and their personal effectiveness in group self-efficacy as they seek and provide feedback in a geographically dispersed environment. Individuals’ and team members’ personal characteristics and the motivation to work closely with geographically dispersed colleagues also align with the major themes across the literature. Social innovation, as discussed in Chap. 4, depicts the relationship between the collective relationships and collective networks that support the individual and collective learning and generate knowledge to interact with trustworthy, empowered, co-located colleagues and colleagues who share knowledge with passion and seek and provide feedback (Barbaroux, 2012; Choo & Johnston, 2004; Kennedy, 2006, 2010; Zack et al., 2009). Organisational characteristics and organisational structure support the knowledge process, which is depicted as geographically dispersed, situated and social. The process emphasises technological infrastructure for learning, knowledge sharing, and putting new skills into practice, individuals’ and team members’ willingness to learn and adapt, requirements for measuring and monitoring performance, and encouragement to explore options and develop innovative solutions to maintain effectiveness (Balestrin, Fayard, & Vargas, 2008; Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Kennedy, 2006, 2010). Social cognitive schema is shared experiences and understanding of members. Carlile (2004) demonstrated that the cognitive schema is something that is shared and sharable across different problem solving situations. Tacit and overt boundaries support the order of cognitive schema, adaptation and generative learning and present how organisational members learn, manage knowledge, and implement

210

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

innovation processes as a way to formulate cognitive processes through seeking, giving and accepting feedback and using it in real situations (Al-Diban & Ifenthaler, 2011; Kennedy, 2006, 2010; Mulej, 2010; Rook, 2013; Sanz-Valle, Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez, Perez-Caballero, 2011). These three themes, (a) social relationship facilitates OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team; (b) knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities facilitates OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team; and (c) social cognitive schema among members of a geographically dispersed team facilitate emergent learning, managing knowledge, and innovation are intertwined and provide an integration of the theoretical perspectives described in contemporary OL, KM, and innovation management literature (Kamya et al., 2011; Kanchana, Law, Comepa, Malithong Phusavat, 2011; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013). This study also builds by integrating grounded theory about what factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation interrelate and what that interrelationship impacts on practical implementation of innovation in any organisation into ‘tidying the territory’ (Fenwick, 2006, p. 265) in terms of analysing the social meanings embedded in learning discourses used across OL, KM, and innovation management domains. The themes are applied equally to OL, KM, and innovation in the following sections. As a result, the effective use of OL, KM, and innovation at the same time progresses to discuss the enablers of OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team.

6.2.1 Social Relationship and Networks Facilitates OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team Paying attention to the individual and the collective and encouraging them to operate more collaboratively in order to generate new knowledge is central to the views of innovation. When individuals work together, they are holistically immersed in the experience, making them especially susceptible to learning (Beckett & Hager, 2000). Learning is embedded or influenced by cultural or organisational artefacts, power relations (Homburg et al., 2008), organisational affordances and the community within which it occurs and is experienced. The units of analysis for learning are well defined when individuals and team members are associated, and learning develops from and influences the active interaction of the individual and team members. Individual and collective learning in this organisation co-emerge in the geographically dispersed environment. In terms of the nature of collective relationships and social interaction, the ways in which individuals and team members learn are infused in their social interactions, tangible communication structures and shared understanding in the geographically dispersed environment. In addition, the knowledge

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

211

sharing activities in this study focuses on structuring the arrangement of social relationship and implementing new skills to ensure complete understanding and transfer in the geographically dispersed environment and also operates as an integral part of the collective network. Organisational members learn from and contribute to each other using the necessary tools for interacting and to perform their job. Individual and the collective in the geographically dispersed environment are intricate to their interaction in learning, knowledge development, and innovation (Kennedy, 2010; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013). Thus, this study supports similar notions and encapsulates the idea of collective learning with innovation as being in line with this study’s findings that reveal that the integration of team members and context is appropriate for collective learning. In this study, the individual and collective co-emerge in their connection in the geographically dispersed working environment. Hence, the part played by any individual in this organisation reflects great importance in both the social nature of learning, knowledge development, and innovation. The individuals and team members shape the way knowledge is geographically dispersed amongst the members and infused with the context. Moreover, in this organisation, collective learning concerns trust, motivation, empowerment, specific skills or techniques to achieve the goals, and interests of groups or how the interests of individuals join together and fit with others in groups; rather, it also involves how the interests of multiple individuals extend to each other as individuals: ‘By helping others become, you also learn to become yourself’ (Johnsson & Hager, 2008, p. 533). Guechtouli et al., (2013, p. 3) claims that learning is more like a process of social participation. This study highlights the social activity between individuals and team members working in a geographically dispersed environment learn, develop new knowledge and, carry out new practices are interweaved in social interaction, tangible structures and with shared experiences.

6.2.1.1

Individuals Learn, Manage Knowledge and Implement Innovation with and from Team Members in a Geographically Dispersed Environment

The learning that happens in a geographically dispersed environment does so in response to adaptation to contextual change. Turner et al., (2012, p. 964) claim that knowledge is the leverage point of learning. Participants’ discussions revealed how organisational members learn through interaction with their local colleagues and those in distant locations and their shared environment. Organisational members act in response to information shared between individuals and team members upon seeking it and providing feedback, resulting in common interests formed from adaptation. It was obvious in the discussions how members benefit from knowledge sharing to solve problems and also learn to implement best practices through collective relationships in a collective network. It is apparent that innovation depends on the incorporation of knowledge generated by a diversity of people, and the development

212

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

of innovation places strong emphasis on the channels and mechanisms for learning, knowledge development, and innovation across intra-organisational boundaries. It is also apparent from participants’ discussion that a basic understanding of the practices of team members is necessary for innovation in intra-organisational tasks. Practice refers to repetitive patterns of activity that bring a sense of meaning and identity to those involved in the practice (Rouleau, 2005), and practice leads to interaction within a collective. These boundaries not only exist between different functions but also within the same function located in a different geographic region (Carlile, 2004; Hernes, 2004). This provides the notion of learning in team members at a geographic distance (Cummings & Teng, 2006). In this study, participants’ experiences clearly illustrate that participants learnt from and with their colleagues in distant locations. Hardwick et al. (2013, p. 8) claim that even though proximity appears to be important for innovative collaboration, the evidence suggests that networking extends well beyond the local. This understanding supports a focus on learning in a diverse environment and with other specific individuals. This perspective supports a focus on learning that occurs beyond the local setting with individuals and team members. This situated learning understanding is developed through social learning theories. Senge (2013) defined social learning as learning occurring within or by a group, an organisation, or any cultural cluster, including the procedures by which knowledge and practice are transmitted across posting cycles, across different work situations and across time. Ali and Warne (2005) defined social learning as reflecting that organisations, organisational units and work groups are social clusters and that learning occurs in a social context. Thus, they claim that knowledge is tightly coupled to social learning. This interaction, during which each agent receives inputs from and shares knowledge with others in distant locations, leads to crossing boundaries (Carlile, 2004). Participants described it as distance learning, knowledge sharing, and putting developed knowledge into practice with shared understanding. Participants talked about their collective relationships, work experiences and how feedback contributes to learning, development and practical execution of new skills on and off the job. Feedback facilitates employees’ learning and development in their physical working environment via formal and informal engagements, work experience and the interaction with other staff members. The learning environment assists organisational members’ learning through the expression of passion, a positive attitude that fosters learning, assessment and feedback. The learning between newcomers and existing staff in the organisation is described as interpreting or translating (Carlile, 2004) the meaning or knowledge used as both groups participate in the practice of teaching and learning. Feedback strengthens members’ behaviours, influencing their relevance to the environment and leading to adaptation at the intra-organisational level. This phenomenon of learning establishes importance for the organisation as a whole and links with the theme of connectedness. What is clear in this study is that regardless of how the resultant knowledge may be adopted and used, agents learn through interaction with organisational members across dispersed settings. As Zeng et al., (2010)

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

213

state, various ‘interactions among different actors being shaped by consciously designed organisational forms which facilitate the accelerated flows of information, resources’ (p. 182) result in ‘collaborative innovation and multidimensional OL process which impact on the way individuals learn’ (Antonacopoulou, 2006, p. 456). Baert and Govaerts (2012, p. 540) state that the social working environment relates to the ways and opportunities in which employees can have contact with each other and learn from each other, with support from managers and colleagues. The participants in this study describe their involvement in shared practices that develop in their common location and geographically dispersed settings, interests and work problems. Baert and Govaerts (2012, p. 539) claim that belonging to a team and acting as a community of practice also means that employees basically have the same learning opportunities available to deliver quality work. This may lead them to—either tacitly or openly– building a learning pattern together. The participants’ discussions reveal that this organisation consists of several communities of practice in the context of departments, teams, units, lecturers and managers and that multiple learning patterns within the organisation arise and coexist. This study’s findings are supported by Wenger (2009) claim that the social learning environment is a knowledge society that builds upon a community of practice. He describes how groups of members share common interest and learn from each other through interaction. Learning in this organisation spread in geographically dispersed environment is understood as engagement with learners, allowing the creation and sharing of knowledge amongst individuals and groups, which was evident in the participants’ discourse. The communities of practice evident in this organisation act as a space where the existing relations of sharing power in the geographically dispersed working environment are made visible. Cummings and Teng (2006) and Wenger, Trayner, & De Laat, (2011) assert that being more interconnected often increases an individual’s sense of community, and a desire to learn about a shared concern often motivates people to seek connections. Similarly, Ardichvili’s (2008) study puts the emphasis on the development of new knowledge as a result of learning engagement in virtual communities. The findings of this study are supported by Cummings and Teng (2006), Ardichvili (2008) and Wenger et al.,’s (2011) assertion that learning occurs through the sharing of common interest between groups and their members, and these members place importance on the development of new knowledge as a result of their commitment. The creation and sharing of knowledge while individuals and team members share trust, passion, motivation through social collective relationships, shared cognitive context and commitment and in a physical environment is prominent in the participants’ discussions. Consistent with the innovation literature (Kanchana et al., 2011; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013), knowledge can be understood as knowledge collections embedded in the people and their abilities in common understanding, their skills the technological infra-structures, and the shared network systems used in the organisation, as well as in the networks formed between and among these contextual elements of this organisation in a geographically dispersed environment.

214

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

This research highlights the dispersed connected networks of members within which the individual learns and through which both the individual and collective emerge and act interconnected. In this study, participants spoke about how knowledge grows from experimentation and knowledge processes and outcomes that allow the creation and replication of an innovation, with interconnectedness existing between the individual and the collective. Therefore, innovation in this geographically dispersed environment needs to specifically incorporate the principles of social learning suggested by Wenger’s (1998) work on communities of practice, enabling the situated learning that occurs when agents share a common practice. The key role this organisation played is management of knowledge, and ultimately, the development of new knowledge—a process dependent upon academics and academic administrators as the organisational members work as a group with local knowledge in both tacit and situated forms. This research reveals that the construction of the collective, simultaneously creating and being created by engagement with others in context, is central to the experiences of learning and knowledge and places emphasis on their interconnection. Participants’ discussions suggest that innovations are seen as implementation of new knowledge; this means that they have the ability to learn from their own experience, generate new knowledge, reuse it in a new context (Quintane, Casselman, Reiche, & Nylund, 2011) and adapt to new conditions (Zimmerman et al., 1998). The organisation in its geographically dispersed environment, and understanding and experiencing learning, KM, and implementing innovation are identified in the discourse of the participants. The connecting reasons given for the experiences are illustrated in Fig. 4.1, which is designed to illustrate the linking of the enabling conditions, experiences and know-how described by the participants at different levels of interaction. Participants’ descriptions in the model in Fig. 4.1 in Chap. 4 illustrate how their shared knowledge needed to be put into practice and how the interaction of team members allowed them to learn, share and use that knowledge. The individuals and team members learned to replicate the knowledge in their specific situation to implement innovation. This required individuals and team members to learn to extensively adapt before using the knowledge in a specific situation to improve organisational performance and implement innovation at the intra-organisational level. The model illustrates the interconnection between major themes in the research and emphasises the mutual relation between the experiences of learning, KM, and innovation in this geographically dispersed educational organisation at different levels of interaction. In this organisation, the geographically dispersed knowledge systems, organisational resources and the enabling conditions for learning, development of knowledge, and innovation were discussed by the participants. Figure 4.1 depicts an integrated model illustrating the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM and innovation practices in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Future authors can consider further exploring this model and the theory-building approach to the modelling operation. Between the agents of a socio-cultural environment exists dynamic, varying and collective relationships and connections (Ng & Earley, 2006). Miles et al., (2009) suggest that innovation is understood in the context of its environment. In this study,

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

215

innovation activities are formed by social learning activities, knowledge sharing, integration and organisational members capable of generating new knowledge through dynamically integrating collaborative relationships within collective networks and utilising resources to achieve higher performance. A key finding in this research is that the formal organisation improves the development of the organisation. This finding contributes to the understanding of this organisation and also the development of innovation theory to organisations in general. The aims, processes, rules and structures of the formal organisation effectively influence the collective network of hierarchies and flows across connectors in the emergent organisation. In this study, innovation in the organisation is seen to emerge from the interaction of team members engaged in the work of the organisation at local and distant sites. Furthermore, in this study, interdependent organisational members acting together unwittingly create something new in the collective relationship by means of trust and passion. The goal of this organisation was to produce unified and cohesive knowledge that could be used to enhance geographically dispersed working environment productivity and performance. The intersection of different members’ learning, with different meanings of social reality embedded in these different views, contributed to the development of knowledge. The multiplicity of site locations and the documents produced during various projects drew attention to relativism, differences and a plurality of forces connected with the circulation of learning at geographically dispersed working environment discussions. This points to the importance of having multiple and divergent sites where knowledge is produced and the productive intersections among individuals and team members. This view of knowledge-producing and sharing activities makes a substantial contribution to knowledge in the fields of OL, KM and innovation. Knowledge is valued by team members for its usefulness and how it could be replicated in a different situation, and temporal context is important. In this organisation, knowledge development is an integral part of the geographically dispersed working environment experience, put into practice which is managed by individuals and team members in a diverse environment. Participants’ discussions in relation to OL, KM, and innovation are illustrated in Fig. 4.1 in Chap. 4. The integrated model in Fig. 4.1 is designed to illustrate the connectedness of the context described, reflecting the interconnection between major themes in the research and underlining the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate learning, knowledge, and innovation in a geographically dispersed work space environment at different levels of interaction. Work-related knowledge is embedded within the social and cultural rules of behaviour that pertain to a specific group as it performs specific work in a specific place (a community of practice) (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991). In this study, organisational knowledge sharing and utilization lies at the intersection between three modes of analysis. Firstly is social interaction, with passion, support and involvement in the geographically dispersed systems of collective relationships, practice, and sensemaking that constitute the organisational work. Secondly, engagement in that social coherence and interaction in sensemaking amongst empowered teams that provides directions for distributed, social,

216

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

and active knowledge to be geographically dispersed and put into practice by the diverse members are discussed. Finally, the management of knowledge and practical implementation of best practices within this organisation fundamentally depends on the culture in terms of how its members understand and interpret the physical settings, organisational structure and knowledge that are evident within their geographically dispersed working environment (Johannessen, 2013). The activities concerning social ties, interactions for learning, the development of knowledge, and putting new ideas into practice are evident in the participants’ discussions. This study’s findings align with Lave and Wenger’s (1991) claims. They involve the negotiation of multiple domains of knowledge by actors who possess at best a partial understanding of domains other than their own and who may only be able to partially articulate knowledge within their own domain. These findings are in line with Boland and Tenkasi (1995) and Brown and Duguid (2000), which involve the negotiation of expertise within a political context and the cognitive context involving a diverse set of interest groups. Expertise—the ability to act knowledgeably within a specific domain of application (Brown & Duguid, 2000)—is inextricably linked to the mobilization of learning, organisational knowledge, and putting new ideas into practice.

6.2.1.2

Individuals Connect, Manage Knowledge, and Achieve Innovation with Team Members on the Basis of a Shared Environment

In this study, team members exist in all levels. Culture, job satisfaction, values and morale are essential components used by team members of this organisation in terms of conscription, withholding, motivation for and supporting social learning, knowledge development, and putting new ideas into practice. Therefore, it is evident that team members exist at all levels; they are not hierarchically established or restricted. Membership is multi-level, and boundary formation occurs in the geographically dispersed working environment situation and with experience. Team members across locations connect with others with shared understanding. Members could easily access their supervisors as they travel across sites when needed, and members participated in the decision-making processes that affected their work. The supervisors were ready to accept the members‘ ideas and listen to their concerns. The behaviours of team members and agents’ feedback appear to influence changing behaviours throughout the organisation. Knowledge development, exchange, and sharing via dialogue allowed the members to engage in genuine thinking together upon receiving feedback about their work. Members’ learning to accept feedback assures the preparedness of the members for willingness and support in their team building and professional development. Knowledge support is evident amongst members who facilitate the acquisition, construction, generation and sharing of information and knowledge amongst members located in a distant environment. Knowledge support is a vital capability for effective social learning. Interaction is purposeful and selective, creating conditions in which specialization

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

217

and collaboration are fostered. Participants also discussed their preferred interaction with those in their environment who have a shared understanding of change and innovation, a related level of commitment to the work and philosophy of the organisation, and the competence to share useful information to support the participants’ success. The collective develops amongst itself through its interaction, a shared meaning of the responsibility and commitment to work. This in turn impacts each individual’s connection with others in the collective. Individuals empower others based on personal interest and skills. In this study, learning, knowledge, new skills, and ideas were valued. People felt invited to use and develop their personal abilities with others. These are positive indicators of effective knowledge exchange and an efficient working practice that contributed to the adaptation of team members for learning and development of new knowledge. Distance is an important theme in discussions about interaction, and the importance is reflected in a wide range of studies on knowledge development in organisations. Johannessen (2013) describes distance as coherent physical environment and as a structure to regulate interaction in the discussions about collective relationships. This significance is revealed in a range of studies on information sharing and knowledge development in organisations. For example, in a study of knowledge sharing using information and communication technologies, Irvine and Anderson (2008) claim that one way that a firm can extend beyond the constraints of the local environment is, through virtual networking or ‘connecting’ by using information communication technology. This mechanism seems to offer a scope for overcoming many of the problems associated with distance and for increasing efficiency ( Oh, Cruickshank, & Anderson, 2009), as electronic modes of interaction enable networking across time and locations. Crossman and Lee-Kelley (2004) claim the term short distance implies that the differences between individual values, attitudes, methods and points of view are minimised. On the other hand, staying closer to technology can enable one to benefit more from diffusion. Sundstrom (2011) explains how users operating at a significant distance provide information as to whether or to what extent the presentation of a report has an impact on the interpretation of a particular situation. These studies highlight the connection between the organisational members and their perceived reliability as knowledge sources. However, they also present insight into the responsibility and trustworthiness of others’ willingness to be engaged in learning, problem solving and creating new knowledge. Kennedy’s (2006) study highlights issues of connection between members and their perceived trustworthiness as knowledge sources, the role of members’ commitment in problem solving and the development of new knowledge blended within one locality. These studies highlight the role of members’ connectivity in learning, the development of new knowledge, and the need for practical implementation. This study reflects similar factors. However, these factors are put into practice and blended in a geographically dispersed environment. In addition, these participants noted that inter-group communication should be focused on people in social, physical, and shared experiences. Karim (2010) claims that a significant relationship exists between institutionalised social dimensions and organisational commitment. In this study, the participants discussed providing new staff with role models, mentors, and support and acknowledgement

218

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

from experienced colleagues, which positively affected their organisational commitment. Therefore, the increased link that individuals and team members in distance locations promotes the interactivity of members and agents and facilitates learning, adaptation, management of knowledge, and executing new practices. The increased link and the connection that arises from collective relationships and collective networks reflect Kennedy’s (2006) description of global behaviours as emerging from their local interaction and appearing to alter perspective, members in this organisation increasingly see themselves as team members existing in a global environment, and team members also contribute to the organisation. They are well connected through rich networks to colleagues, knowledge, and opportunities that enable them to make far more informed decisions, learn collaboratively and solve problems in a ‘glocalized’ (Mohrman & Lawler, 2011, p. 44) environment to achieve global leverage and local optimization. In this study, the environment of multiple cognitive boundaries across multiple intersecting communities identifying appropriate ‘boundary objects’ seems to be a way of integrating the dimensions of innovation in a manner that is coherent and meaningful to diverse participants. Boundary objects are ‘cognitive epistemic and practices, artefacts, documents, terms, concepts and other forms of reification around which communities of practice can organise their interconnections’ (Wenger, 1998, p. 105). In this organisation, the artefacts in the form of individuals and team members with shared understanding, shared awareness, and shared experiences in executing procedures, documents, tools, visual representations, discourses, terms, concepts, processes and technologies (Wenger, 2000) are defined as boundary objects. However, most important is the emphasis on the mental boundaries of shared epistemic practices (Von Krogh, Kim, & Erden, 2008). Diverse members represent different backgrounds and cognitive styles, and they share a need for common knowledge based on shared beliefs and mental boundaries (Johannessen, 2013). Wenger (2000) asserts that although boundary objects can hinder OL—by allowing for a degree of commonality of viewpoint so ideas can be shared across boundaries—they can potentially enable the generation of new knowledge, a shared understanding as well as putting new knowledge into practice. In this organisation, organisational members’ use of their mental space and cognitive schema allow for the collective learning, practices and capabilities generated within the boundaries around various communities to be shared across those boundaries. In the discussions analysed in this study, the characteristics and mechanisms provided ceaselessly novel conditions, which contributed to the continual adaptation of team members and their generation of new knowledge amongst individuals and team members in various locations. Participants share an understanding of their responsibilities, basing their actions on their construction of appropriate organisational behaviour, such as being motivated to work with team members in a geographically dispersed team. Participants’ discussion revealed boundary formation around team members based on the situation and experience, and it is not related to the organisational level or role. The exchange of knowledge with a shared spirit, cognitive schema, the articulation of new ideas by staying closer to technology and

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

219

interaction with members at the geographically dispersed working environment lead to knowledge creation and carrying out best practices. The boundaries formed by collective relationships and connections were described by participants in their analysis as organisational characteristics. Participants articulated how the boundaries are drawn, focusing particularly on distance but also recognizing skills, work experience and the immediate context for OL, organisational KM, and implementation of innovation. Participants improve their coherence through their shared understanding of the organisational characteristics, basing actions on their construction of appropriate organisational behaviour.

6.2.1.3

OL, KM, and Innovation Perceived as Both Individual and Teams in a Geographically Dispersed Environment

The participants in this study interchangeably referenced their learning as individual members and collectively. The comment (M320)—We learn from one another … Working with others is a very, very enjoyable …—is a delightful illustration of the participants’ recognition of ‘the learner’ as both individual and collective—with ‘We’ as a learning entity. According to Wenger (1998), a community of practice involves organizing around some particular area of knowledge (i.e. a shared domain of interest) that gives members a sense of joint enterprise and shared identity. This current study challenges this statement by suggesting that human capacity exists as ‘knowledge ecologies’ (Chatti, 2012, p. 836), which are open, flexible, heterogeneous and multidisciplinary social entities. Por (2000, p. 3), for instance, defines knowledge ecology as ‘a field of theory and practice that focuses on discovering better social, organisational, behavioural and technical conditions for knowledge creation and utilization’. Knowledge ecology is a social entity that has no clear boundaries or membership criteria. In knowledge ecology, people continuously create their personal knowledge networks, which have no centre and rely on geographically dispersed control and coordinated action between individual actors. In this study, knowledge ecologies are formed by long-term personal relationships amongst individuals who self-organise in highly flexible, dynamic, and unpredictable networks, without predetermined roles. The findings of this study are supported by Kennedy’s (2006, 2010) reflections on learning as an activity of mutually supporting team members by a web of interactions within which patterns of meaning emerge. Collective learning goes before individual learning. Individuals and team members exist through the interaction of close-knit people in their geographically dispersed working environment. The individual and team members are situated through the interactivity of people who are closely connected, even though they may be working in different physical places. Foucault (1984) in his reflection on external space, states that we do not live in a kind of void, inside of which we can place individuals and things, stating that we ‘do not live inside a void that could be coloured with diverse shades of light, we live inside a set of relations that delineates sites which are irreducible to one another and absolutely not superimposable on one another’ (pp. 115–116).

220

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

This reflection has strong significance as it relates to the findings of this study and to insights on innovation. For these participants, ‘sites’ of learning are about work, work is about learning by interaction, and learning is viewed as a product of individual and collective networks. The participants’ discourse in this study reveal that the organisation puts the knowledge worker at the centre and supports a wide variety of self-directed knowledge work and learning experiences within and beyond the organisational boundaries and across different sites. It further acts as an agile knowledge-networking organisation that helps its members as knowledge workers continuously build their individual and collective knowledge network and implement best practices in an effective and efficient way; it provides a free form and ‘emergent environment conducive to networking, inquiry, and trial and error, that is, an open environment’ in which participants and members make connections, see patterns, reflect, (self)-criticize, detect/correct errors, inquire, test, challenge and eventually change their theories-in-use, thus changing the organisational theoriesin-use (Chatti, Schroeder & Jarke, 2012, p. 179). Participants reveal open, emergent, and self-organised work and learning environments as knowledge ecologies in this organisation. Individuals and team members construct a knowledge bridge between social interaction of people, functions and technology that facilitates in making the connection. They implement practices that have been proven by experience to be useful to individuals and team members Therefore, participants’ discussions reflect the ‘sites’ of learning, knowledge construction, and implement practices in their network of collaboration that constitute their experience, which are at the same time individual and collective. An important finding in this study is how the members attached meaning to the term organisation in their discussions. They used various terms to represent the structures that direct their behaviour and could be used to describe any network of human beings and human relations. The relationship between individual members, their collectivism and the organisation is discussed below, as it is important for thoroughly understanding the research question. The clear distinction between natural learning amongst individuals and team members and the persistent construction which was continually referred to as the organisational structures and organisational characteristics is defined in this study as a connection. With the approaches of connecting and mentoring, each learning relationship begins with mutually agreed-upon goals, allowing participants to start with a social learning focus upon which all parties can collaborate (Emelo, 2010, p. 204). March and Olsen (1975) describe the link between individual and organisational learning. Hoeve and Nieuwenhuis (2006), claim that individual learning and collective learning are part of an obvious integrated process that includes cognitive and social aspects. This study revealed that an interlocking organisational setting is sufficient for understanding the coordinating mechanisms between the different individuals and team members’ levels in an organisation. D’Amato and Roome (2009) and Deschamps (2005, p. 35) speak of mentoring as a coaching role in the clarification of organisational learning, and it is a term which may well be used to describe the learning articulated in discussions in this study. With this approach to mentoring, each learning relationship begins with mutually agreed-upon

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

221

goals, allowing participants to start with a social learning focus upon which all parties can collaborate (Emelo, 2010, p. 204). In this study, the members’ efforts to share knowledge by crossing geographical boundaries to coach their colleagues first reflect an attempt at learning, constructing knowledge, and implementing practices with shared understanding. The members travelling across sites and beyond geographical distances have been training the local academics and staff, introducing new teaching and learning facilities, and improving their competence in the day-to-day work. The ‘mentoring’ is a useful unit of analysis for learning that occurs in this organisation amongst team members formed at the intra-organisational level. The discussions consistently related the experiences of members and their distant interactions with colleagues in illustrating the ways knowledge travels, develops, and stored for solving problems and (mainly) mentoring their colleagues. Emelo (2010) claims that mentoring can address both traditional development issues, as well as problematical social issues that people face. The participants in this study also discussed the fact that mentoring, coaching and role modelling experiences contributed to increased productivity and effectiveness. It was apparent in this study from the discussions of the participants that members were expanding their networks, gaining leadership skills, and solving problems, which increased their confidence in their current role. The efforts to create a platform for assuring shared understanding across collective boundaries, according to the participants’ discussions, suggests a paramount role for the members (knowledge experts and technology and knowledge brokers) who are travelling; they provide new sources of knowledge and spread the need for learning, new knowledge input, and for executing new practices. The participants in this study cite organisational structures and processes as the sources of the connection between team members and the organisation. The findings of this study correspond to Hernes (2004), who clearly highlights the boundaries around the collective and the trust and motivation to share created by the collective’s self-efficacy and ability to cluster at the next level of collective relationship to build learning hierarchies. In this study, through collaborative learning, the organisational form takes shape into three hierarchical layers. Firstly, the organisational form as an intra-organisational business system operating at multiple locations; secondly, it is a project system with members collaborating with diverse members who have different functions; and thirdly, it depends on a geographically dispersed knowledge system. The collaboration of organisational entities points to the growth of knowledge development and putting processes into practice that has emerged from agents’ interaction within their geographically dispersed working environment. The interrelationship between the learning individual and the learning collective in this study occurs in a geographically dispersed environment. This implies that the concept of organisational environment is important in understanding the synchronizing mechanisms between the individual and collective levels.

222

6.2.1.4

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

Geographically Dispersed Individuals and Team Members Interact, Manage Knowledge, and Implement Innovation to Increase Effectiveness

That learning emerges from support and commitment to maintain effectiveness in dynamic and distance environments is a central theme in this study. Learning in this organisation is an innovative phenomenon, an emergent outcome of the interaction between individuals, team members and processes to maintain effectiveness. In identifying this emergent perspective, this study explores the synergy between the collective relationship of learning, KM processes, and practical implementation of new practises. This organisation revealed the positive impacts of organisational, architectural, social, and cultural factors on innovation through the participants’ discourse. Collective relationships and learning behaviour revealed capabilities of bottomup and top-down communication, and the management’s role also officially enabled such channels. In this way, it was also evident that unofficial connections were made, and direct feedback took place inside or outside officially designated channels. With awareness generated in this way, agents recognise core opportunities and are empowered by management to focus at least some energy on the most relevant and interesting ideas. The environment in this organisation, thus, consists of geographically dispersed sites where opportunity is great and where informal networks of agents actively work on responses. The findings of this study agree with Espinosa and Porter (2011, p. 34), who describe organisational-level, adaptive behaviour as emergent from an ‘appropriate set of feedback, collective relationships, and empowerment of bottom up and emergent processes’. It is evident from the participants’ discourse that motivated and empowered employees are freed from controlling processes in a way that enables a number of collective relationships that are able to engage in social interaction, produce new knowledge, and execute new ideas that emerges for the benefit of this organisation. Change and passion are consistently linked with a positive impact, revealing patterns of ‘intrinsically motivated learning’ (Firestone & McElroy, 2003, p. 98). Knowledge-sharing activities are naturally occurring in collective relationships and, in some cases, in high-performing groups. The outcomes of collective are attempts to generate new knowledge that can be effectively reused in another situation in a geographically dispersed working environment to solve problems. The properties that emerge from the groups’ naturally occurring collective relationship in this study also include innovations in techniques and processes, including support, passion, nurture, change, effectiveness and innovation. The naturally occurring collective relationships exemplified in this study came together in response to pressing issues or geographically dispersed working environment problems that took collective action to resolve. Brachos, Konstantinos, Klas and Soderquist, (2007) claim that a new emergent order through the construct of perceived ‘usefulness of knowledge’ is a critical alternative to development and knowledge-sharing effectiveness. The usefulness of knowledge also finds support for its positive relationship with innovation.

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

223

The concept emphasises the permeability and exchange of information and feedback across all boundaries (Brachos et al., 2007). In innovation processes, profound dynamism is found to be a key issue and a solution for enhancing sustainability. The literature on sustainability focuses on OL, and similar approaches link the innovation concepts of OL, and sustainability, but they are only very superficially dealt with (Molnar & Mulville, 2003). Hence, this is an exciting avenue awaiting new discoveries and insights. This characteristic of innovation is evident in the participants’ discussions of the group consuming vast amounts of energy through learning and implementing new knowledge in its environment and then by learning through the empowerment of bottom-up and emergent processes. Espinosa and Porter (2011) describe this kind of phenomenon as ‘bottom-up innovation’ for sustainability (p. 60), which enables systems to leap ahead to higher fitness levels. For the participants, the notion of sustainability relates to the organisational setting in terms of their responsibility, passion, trust, and commitment to increase their performance within their dynamic organisation through learning in context and interaction with team members. They are also aware that their ability to succeed is dependent on the behaviour of other members. The participants’ discussions also revealed that the top managers do indeed set a sustainability vision for the organisation. However, it was also evident that this alone did not produce improvements without the systematic enabling of organic processes of local experimentation and initiative development and testing, eventually leading to top-down ratification and dissemination of the most promising innovations system-wide (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000). Feldman and Martin (2005), in a wider social perspective, describe knowledge-driven dynamics as essential for ensuring sustained performance and growth. In the dynamic fitness landscape of this study site, fitness function is about working to maximise positive outcomes in interactions with both internal and external customers for sustained performance and growth. In these interactions, agents act to attract positive feedback, which was evident in participant discussions about innovating solutions to solve problems. Mason (2007, p. 13) claims that positive feedback is the principle underlying increasing returns to scale, which specifies that a firm with a small advantage early on can enjoy exponential growth until the advantage is so great that the advantage becomes ‘locked in’ as an industry standard. In the socio-cultural landscape of this study site, feedback causes the creation of new knowledge. This new knowledge is reused in new situations by diverse team members. It is evident from this study that participants were innovative at detecting problems and were intrinsically motivated by the formation of learning groups, by the opportunity to use knowledge in a new situations and putting new knowledge into practice in a geographically dispersed environment. In cases where several individuals in the field had knowledge related to facilitating a resolution, the collective network offered a variety of options to the individuals, who then worked with the problem, the context, the collective and their own knowledge to resolve the issue.

224

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

6.2.2 Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms and Activities Facilitate OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team The repeated collaboration of agents as an emergent property is stressed in OL, KM, and innovation literature, which are influenced by or make use of innovation theories. This study highlights social learning as the role of the individual and collective learner in the production and integration of knowledge, and putting new knowledge into practice through engagement with work. The active and situated nature of the knowledge emerging from this social engagement of members in the geographically dispersed working environment is significant. The organisational members connect with flexibility at work to develop knowledge, and executing new practices is similarly important. Motivated learning influences the formal organisation to be focused on achieving common goals that lead to encouragement for members and knowledge sharing, and putting new skills into practice outside the collective. In this study, learning, production, integration and utilization of knowledge and implementation of new practices incorporate social systems, with emphasis on the importance of linkage, collective relationship and problem solving. Human social systems, which are intrinsic in this experience at a geographically dispersed working environment with geographically dispersed locations, lead to ‘experiential learning’ and ‘motivational learning’ (Firestone & McElroy, 2003, p. 98) through formal and informal engagement and create a connection between emergent new organisational knowledge, and carrying out the best practices in a geographically dispersed environment.

6.2.2.1

Organisational Characteristics Influence OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team

Learning in this study focuses on the procedures and channels used to share and receive all kinds of knowledge and to establish work routines, rules, knowledge transfer and the structures that define the participants’ work role, as well as the roles for colleagues, clients and customers with whom they engage in socially and organisationally driven communication. Learning in this organisation is obvious and acts as a bonding mechanism to integrate knowledge and execute new practices in the organisation. In this study, participants’ discussions depict learning occurring through the work that individuals do as a result of iterative interaction with the team members, the organisation and the geographically dispersed working environment. This finding accords with the work of Marsick and Watkins (1990) on informal learning and also with the work of Birdi, Allan and Warr (1997), which shows learning by supervisor support. Birdi et al., (1997) claim that, supervisor support may contribute to the

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

225

development of a supportive work environment. This is achieved through encouraging, reinforcing and providing opportunities to practice new behaviours (Burke & Hutchins, 2007) and nourishing the required organisational environment. In this study, discussions reveal that learning occurs through the work that participants do (i.e. learning embedded in the work) and through training transfer, where the knowledge and skills acquired in a learning setting are executed in the participants’ working environment locally and at distance locations and maintained over time (Blume et al., 2010). This is a result of iterative interaction with the collective, the organisation and the work environment (Fenwick, 2006). Regular meetings with supervisors in this organisation afforded the opportunity for coaching, mentoring and encouragement. Participants valued timely feedback either formally or informally along the way because it developed self-awareness, shared understanding, confidence and the opportunity to correct behaviours in a geographically dispersed working environment. Learning in a geographically dispersed working environment opportunities can occur formally or informally and on or off the job (Jacobs & Park, 2009). In this study, the participants discussed that the conditions for informal learning in this organisation were activities, situations and tools usually intended for learning, most notably in the actual work setting. Although the primary aim of these conditions was not learning, they can be used—consciously or unconsciously—for learning, knowledge development, and for improvement in their everyday working environment. The informational and material environment in this organisation refers to the availability of information, as well as to conditions in the material environment, such as office sharing, job assistance, information and communication facilities, databases, guide books and instruction manuals, which can create the possibility for learning, development of knowledge and improving organisational practices. In this study, the social working environment amongst the organisational members related to the ways and opportunities in which they had contact with each other and learnt by this means from each other with support from managers and colleagues. Oh et al. (2009) believes that people will use social networking technology in the way they have been accustomed to using it outside the job—simply to connect socially. They suggest that to create more intentional learning, organisations would be better off utilising on-the-job training, coaching and mentoring. These learning activities, which combine social networking technologies with intentional learning activities to create powerful development tools, were evident in the participants’ discussion. For many participants, concern for the organisation, its goals and vision concurrently represents a connection to the collective relationship. For other members, selecting who to interact with is dependent on their own and others’ concern for, and commitment to, the organisation’s mission. Bragg’s (2009) work on collective learning similarly finds that individuals in everyday work settings are constrained by their work roles and informal relationships. Taminiau et al., (2009, p. 44) provided examples of formal knowledge sharing, such as ‘meetings’ and organised ‘brainstorm sessions’. These factors were evident in this study and suggested that a culture which ensures that explicit knowledge is shared does not preclude the sharing of implicit knowledge. An example is in-house training with an emphasis on observation.

226

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

Learning in the geographically dispersed working environment and elsewhere can be attributed to informal learning (Marsick & Watkins, 1990). Marsick and Watkins (1990) defined learning as ‘the way individuals or groups acquire, interpret, reorganise, change … information, skills, and feelings’ (p. 4). They acknowledge that learning ‘is primary to the way in which people construct meaning in their personal and shared organisational lives’ (Marsick & Watkins, 1990, p. 4). Such informal learning is often so highly integrated with work that it may not be recognised (Marsick, 2009). This study’s findings agree with the work of Marsick et al., (1999), which shows that the learning that occurs during informal practice when members have the opportunity to share alternate work practices, listen, question, practice, confirm and reflect on their work is more important than the contribution of formalised learning programmes. Learning that happens through social interaction allows individuals and team members to organise developed knowledge in new ways making techniques to use existing knowledge and carry out practices. This research contributes to providing a more in-depth and descriptive understanding of the innovation of this process while embedded in this dynamic context, working with organisational members in dispersed locations. A collaborative learning culture with mechanisms to capture and share the critical learning embedded in daily lived experience in the geographically dispersed working environment to capitalise on the informal learning (Ellinger & Cseh, 2007) that often tacitly occurs is evident in this organisation. Participants’ discussions reveal that an informal learning culture depicted trust, open communication and opportunities to engage in reflective practice; this is made possible by organisational leaders, managers and members who cultivate, offer support for or invest the time necessary to develop such a collaborative working environment. The findings of this study highlight the creation of knowledge through engagement and action and the interconnectedness of the learner, the practical implementation of developed knowledge, and the geographically dispersed working environment. Collective relationships for workplace learning (Eraut, 2011; Fuller & Unwin, 2011; Gold, Holden, Griggs, & Kyriakidou, 2010) suggest that ‘at the centre of an expansive learning environment lies the relationship between line managers and their staff’ (Gold et al., 2010, p. 196). Ellinger and Cseh (2007) noted that the overarching factor that positively influenced employees learning at work was ‘learning committed leadership/management’ (p. 445). In this study, the participants discussed informal influences, such as being a role model and how members create a ‘culture for learning’ (Marsick, 2009, p. 271). The social learning influences of their staff was discussed with reference to how their agents’ inspire through role modelling and management support (Vera & Crossan, 2004). A collective relationship is capable of generating new forms of knowledge and practice for all members. Hence, knowledge is socially created, transferred and managed by learners within the geographically dispersed environment is active and distributed. The detailed analysis and this study reveal the effectiveness of managing knowledge, which completely mediates the relationship between trust, empowerment, passion, motivation, management support and the process of social learning, and putting new practices into action that occurs locally and at distant locations; this is a contribution to OL, KM, and innovation theory in a

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

227

geographically dispersed working environment. The findings of this study underline the notion that OL attitudes and approaches, the interconnectedness of learners, the setting augment the development of knowledge, and putting innovation into practice through collaboration and action. The findings reflect what Fuller and Unwin (2011) and Gold et al., (2010) refer to as embodied development. It is the situated, innovative, self-adaptive, interconnected learning that emerges through social interaction and which indirectly interconnects organisational characteristics and organisational structures.

6.2.2.2

OL, KM, and Innovation Emerges as a Result of Architectural Dynamics

Organisational characteristics and organisational structures offering architectural innovation (described in the literature review) have been featured in recent innovation management literature. Understanding the interconnectedness of agents and settings, their interdependence, and the influence of collective relationships, and technology infrastructure facilitating social activity is critical to better understanding the learning, knowledge development, and improving organisational practices that occurs as a result. It is also critical in understanding the impact this learning, KM, and innovation experiences has on geographically dispersed individuals and team members. The findings of this study illustrate the social relationship between geographically dispersed participants and the working environment that results in their learning, KM, and innovation processes. Each member can be seen as a part of naturally formed team members and as coevolving with the structures that emerge from the learning of other members and the influence of others in the environment, creating opportunities for learning and adaptation and a common interest, a sense of belonging, shared language, social capital and networking support and interconnection that enable learning, management of knowledge, and execution of innovation process (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012). It is evident that knowledge is distributed as information transmission, development, acquisition, transferring, and implementation through collective teamwork in dispersed locations. Members sharing the necessary competences and then propagating the knowledge at a collective level occur because of the organisational structure: not because of a grouping by functions, but rather because of a grouping of cross departmental roles and organisational units that can change and adapt to the precise problem and context. To avoid the segregation of such a group, cohesion mechanisms are evident, with the sharing of strong values and intrinsically motivated learning, KM, and making use of diversity of organisational members that link individual targets with professional ones and with the objectives of the collective. In recent learning literature (Mohrman & Lawler, 2011), greater importance has been placed on the ways in which cognition, individuality and context emerge together through learning. Likewise, knowledge is identified as an important input in the innovation process (Knockaert, Spithoven & Clarysse, 2010). In this study, the participants spoke meaningfully about the novel experience of their work and

228

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

working life and the result this has on their learning. A strong theme in the discussions emerged when these organisational members described their attempts to self-organise to collaborate with team members to implement local practices that have been understood and used by teams have been found out to be useful to other geographically dispersed sites to maintain effectiveness in their dynamic environment.

6.2.2.3

OL, KM, and Innovation Emerge Through Practice

The findings of this study reveal that organisational members learn through their everyday practice at the geographically dispersed working environment to develop necessary knowledge. Empowerment and self-support are enacted in these practices. Learning in context is obvious in participants’ discussions. They spoke about how the work itself provides an important learning space, produces rich knowledge outcomes, and improves skills for individuals and team members. This learning space is very well utilised in this organisation as the participants’ everyday work is done. Selfsupport and mentoring, formal and informal learning, and knowledge systems, and creative settings used actively by the organisational members all have the goal of providing consistency in performance. Participants provided numerous examples of learning that takes place through engagement at work (Kennedy, 2006). Basically, the participants report that they do their job in relation to what customers expect. However, their interpretation of what the customer expects relies heavily on their sense-making of the use of existing practice and meaning construction when dealing with their own knowledge boundaries, and putting into practice. Hence, expected improvements in the organisation have the consequences of basically changing their knowledge boundaries and culminate as adjustments to established practice and result in significant innovation (Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Venkataraman, 1999). What is also evident about the organisation is that mentoring, as suggested by Emelo (2010), occurs at ontological and intra-organisational levels when organisational members are co-located in different settings. The learning occurs at individual and collective levels through interactions intended for achieving organisational goals. The learning supports the development of new knowledge and strengthens improvement. This study revealed a blurring of boundaries between geographically dispersed working environment and learning. The participants spoke about their leaders and managers within their organisation who support and encourage them to adapt their behaviours and learning activities to the use of knowledge repositories and information and communication technology (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007), and for putting new practices into execution. Barki et al., (2007) confirm that when team members learn how to use and interact with information and communication technology, they can change their behaviours to perform tasks. In this study, participants explained that knowledge is divided and dispersed amongst individuals or autonomous groups who are geographically dispersed. The processes of the creation, sharing, application of knowledge, and practical implementation of developed knowledge occur in different locations. Bonifacio et al., (2002)

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

229

described the management of these processes as distributed KM processes. The participants discussed how geographically dispersed members socially interact, share knowledge, store, retrieve, create, apply and carry out new practices. Organisational members work in ‘other locations’ rather than in the ‘same location’ (Hildreth, 2000), and they perform similar jobs or share the same purpose. They are willing to share knowledge, and put knowledge into practice for mutual benefit. They have different experiences and backgrounds, which include their education, training, industry experience, and prior living and working environments. Individuals and team members create a new working environment which opens up new interaction motivations and invites diverse participants to travel, co-locate and use new methods of working. The development of knowledge is geographically dispersed across various sites in this organisation, and participants describe working in a ‘virtual team’, travel, and co-locate in a geographically dispersed environment. This has become a common mechanism for using, reusing, adapting and applying knowledge for teams across geographically dispersed locations. It was also apparent from the discussions that members collaborate and solve problems together by sharing similar work experiences with colleagues located at a distance, leading to the flow of knowledge from one to the other. However, the success of the virtual team, travelling and co-locating individuals and team members depends on whether the physical settings, systems, and technologies can provide team members with a collaborative working environment and creative settings in which communication takes place without geographical restrictions, knowledge is managed, and execute practices using the same language and shared understanding, the purpose is clear and generally translated into certain action steps, and trust is built when collaborations occur (Ebrahim, Ahmed & Taha, 2009; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Therefore, participants’ discussions revealed that the nature of their working environment, their interaction with colleagues in a physical creative settings which is conducive for social interaction, virtual team and the design of its integrated geographically dispersed KM system, and carrying out best practices provide a successful, collaborative working environment. Moreover, bidirectional interactions between involved organisational members advance learning, management of knowledge, and practical execution of best practices. Participants frequently mentioned the use of a KM system in their discussions as a communication channel to interact, exchange official knowledge, create knowledge, and put new knowledge into practice for improvement. This communication channel and process encouraged members to seek advice from other knowledgeable members via these channels for collective relationship, shared understanding, and putting new skills into practice. This study clearly shows that when knowledge and the development of knowledge are interwoven very closely with learning, and putting the developed knowledge into practice in the geographically dispersed working environment, organisational performance increases.

230

6.2.2.4

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

Performance Metrics Facilitates OL, KM, and Implement Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team

This study demonstrates the nested nature of team members, as discussed above. The collective relationship occurs between individuals and team members in a diverse environment. The participants’ discussions portray the geographically dispersed working environment as a highly differentiated network structure, where each specialty has engendered multidisciplinary networks. The participants’ discussion portray, however, that network boundaries are relatively fluid and dynamic, and nomadic teams of academic staff were aware of their interdependence with administration staff. Relationships are, therefore, seen as permeating throughout various multidisciplinary fields and as being activated in an ad hoc manner, frequently through communication processes, while travelling across sites and co-locating with others. A significant finding in this study is that a collective relationship does not build hierarchy. ‘Default hierarchies’ (Holland, 1995, p. 60) are a set of rules that models a set of environmental states in which some default rules cover most of the environmental states while specific ones cover exceptions. It is well known that default hierarchies can be used to categorise environmental states very efficiently. Default hierarchy formation was evident in participants’ discussions about agents who depend on overly general default rules that serve them better than random actions. As experience accumulates, the cognitive schema of individuals and team members is modified by adding competing, more specific exception rules. These interact interdependently with the default rules. Moreover, participants’ discussions revealed that the learning, KM, and organisational performance can be improved by using default hierarchies and by adding more exceptions. The whole organisation can learn gracefully; that is, the performance of the organisation is not too strongly influenced by the insertion of new rules. The participants’ assumption about ‘default hierarchies’ is that the knowledge that is supplied as official knowledge from one site to another site or endorsed by the organisation for collaboration, and for putting official knowledge into practice with improvements encourages the collective’s ability to cluster at higher levels of groups. For the participants in this current study, the use of ‘we’ reflect an important connect within the learning, KM, and innovation activities in the geographically dispersed working environment. Participants used ‘we’ frequently and interchangeably in relation to the local, overseas facility and the organisation. Regardless of the position of the participant in the organisation, the organisation was discussed as though it was their identity together with the individual or the team members. The described interconnects to the flow of knowledge through the organisation are a result of the preferred behaviour of individuals working in a collective network. Participants discussed how their organisational members see things deeply, far beyond the level of concepts and opinions, letting go of concepts and things that need to be unlearned. They display a positive and constructive awareness, a greater sensitivity to their environment, more openness to new information, the ability to create new categories for structuring perception, and enhanced awareness of multiple perspectives, implied

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

231

links and approaches to the implicate order, which is a holistic perception of the world. Feedback loops again emerge as important to the learning, knowledge development, and understand the feedback and team members’ context. Positive feedback at the local level underpins innovation and problem solving, which builds up the local ability—contrary to negative feedback loops from the formal organisation for similar behaviour. The recent work of Blomme and Lintelo (2012, p. 406) claims that depending on the balance between positive (deviation-amplifying) and negative (deviationreducing) feedback loops over time, organisational structures and organisational characteristics may show different types of temporal patterns. In this study, the participants discussed positive feedback, which tends to enhance, strengthen or stimulate interaction through an inflow of energy. Behaviours are also disrupted, and a cycle of positive feedback is initiated, which further amplifies the effects of the surge in energy throughout the environment. Management in this socio-cultural and turbulent environment is organic, with the participants as managers concentrating on creating an internal environment conducive to co-evolution. Decision making is decentralised, learning and experimentation are facilitated, and change is encouraged. Participants provide the information to support this approach, and control is exercised through individual and group control locally and at a distance using collective epistemic cognition. Such behaviour described by the participants reveals architectural innovation management. In response to feedback from the work environment in support of both the experiential learning and motivational interests of the collective, learning and adaptation occur at the collective level. Experiential learning, knowledge development, and execution occurs in response to interaction with a changing work context in which individuals work collectively to ensure achieving a common goal. Team members improve their fitness in carrying out the work and are receptive to actually absorbing skills from the other team members. Receptivity (Hamel, 1991) is the beginning of OL from partners. Participants’ discussions about motivation and their humility enhance organisational receptivity and facilitate OL, management of knowledge, and awareness from others. The environment stimulates organisational and individual enthusiasm to learn, manage knowledge, and putting new ideas into practice from partners. Thus, the participants reflected a positive attitude and considered receptivity an organisational capability, or rather an organisational attitude. It is evident from the participants’ discussion that the organisational attitude enhances receptivity of this organisation, and on the other hand, receptivity facilitates OL, KM, and innovation. OL, KM, and innovation experiences occur through intrinsic motivational interest in which the team members obtain empowerment over their work, attempting to effectively meet their work life requirements. Participants’ discussion revealed the innovation capability of their members’ and that they had accessible knowledge to effectively absorb, master, and improve existing social relationships, technologies and to create new ones. This finding illustrates that learning, KM, and innovation practices occur continually, emerging from the geographically dispersed working environment and interactions within this environment. The formal organisation creates

232

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

an environment within which the organic emergence of the organisation can take place. Additionally, members not only learn from their own behaviour, but they also learn through role modelling while observing other’s behaviour and through the consequences of their own actions. Through role modelling, individuals can learn the rules of behaviour simply by observing. Self-regulation implies member behaviour that is self-motivated and regulated by self-evaluation. Organisational members have the capacity to know themselves. Individuals observe their ideas and predict their actions accordingly. One of the most representative capacities for self-reflection in these participants’ discussion about their organisational members is self -efficacy. This is the belief that organisational members’ capacities can produce efficiency. The findings of this study revealed that KM activities takes place when actors or units communicate their existing knowledge to others; this requires the existence of structural, cognitive and relational social capital (Johannessen, Olsen & Olaisen, 2005). It is also evident that the need for coordinative knowledge practices serving to proactively widen the attention span within collaborating sites is shaped by the nature of work coupling, social capital and technology affordances. Olson and Olson (2014) claim that synchronizing bonded activities is a practice evident where collaborators acquire, share, and communicate knowledge in real time to coordinate geographically dispersed decisions and acts. It is evident from participants’ discussion that the learning, acquiring of knowledge, and putting acquired knowledge into practice is not limited to individual members; rather, learning, knowledge, and innovation develops from and occurs through individual and collective participation and interaction. In many of the discussions, the organisation’s opportunities are explained in terms of participants’ passion to maintain power and influence in their work environment. Moreover, enabling innovation strongly relates to how empowerment is enacted in this organisation. Empowerment, for the participants in this study, reflects a meaning in which the employee takes on power over the geographically dispersed working environment and the employer delivers power to the employee (Field, 1997, p. 149) for a period of time, for example, when members are co-located at other geographical sites. Organisational members attempting to achieve performance, or to support those who do perform, spoke of their need for flexibility in meeting the needs of their work. Moskaliuk and Kimmerle (2009, p. 39) claim that a complex task usually requires flexibility so that people have some independence in bringing in their own experience and finding their own way of accomplishing the task. This study demonstrates that organisational members create knowledge about solving problems at work and contribute the information to a shared knowledge repository through colleagues travelling across sites, which other members at different locations can share, learn and potentially find useful for new situations. The use of previous knowledge influences individuals’ manner of performing tasks in new situations and contexts. As a result, individuals change their behaviour, and organisational knowledge is also revised and adapted. Knowledge improves over time as it is shaped and formed by the experiences of members in different situations. Duplicating knowledge is a theme in organisational learning, workplace learning literature and KM discussions (e.g. Quintane et al., 2011). Reinforcing this discussion again reaffirms claims about the nature of knowledge. For the participants of this study, knowledge is produced in the

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

233

geographically dispersed working environment by ‘doing’, created in the collective, reliant on work space environment and constantly changing. Empowerment, selfsufficiency and self-support are thought to be significant in terms of participants’ ability to perform. Participants’ discussions showed that individuals who are more open to a flexible working relationship with others to form collective learning and a multicultural workforce across different sites and geographic boundaries were able to learn, obtain knowledge, and practically implement the knowledge obtained at a collective level. The interactions between members and the geographically dispersed work sites lead to novel outcomes which require flexibility. Much of the learning, KM, and innovation activities that happen in team members are through practice, with the feedback to the geographically dispersed working environment supporting new knowledge in the organisation.

6.2.2.5

Social Cognitive Schema Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team Facilitate Emergent Learning, KM, and Innovation

The emergent themes in this study of the tacit and overt boundaries as order of cognitive schema are consistent with significant arguments in the OL, KM, and innovation theories. Johannessen’s (2013) work describes mental boundaries that are central to the notions of learning, knowledge sharing, and innovation. Xiao and Jin (2010) assert that the shared mental model symbolises an individual’s shared knowledge about team, goals and team process information as well as elements of the team’s work. The shared mental model improves team effectiveness by accelerating team members to form resonance and the right foresight of their job, leading to coordination amongst members. The findings of this study note the significance of shared interests and understandings as connections for individuals and team members, as networks develop from involvement, learning, KM, and shared understanding in the geographically dispersed working environment. Learning through engagement from work and through the common interest of team members in this study is supported by Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory. Bandura asserts that human function is explained by a triadic reciprocity, where personal factors, environment and behaviour interact. The role of feedback supports connections and interactions and influence the common understanding and emergence of collective relationship properties. Reychav and Weisberg (2010) state that internal personal factors in the form of cognitive, affective and biological events, as well as behavioural and environmental events, all operate as interacting determinants that influence each other. Balestrin et al., (2008) also states that organisations are changed by people’s behaviour and their cognitive boundaries. The participants’ discussion revealed that organisational members in this study are capable of symbolizing, learning through modelling, forethought; self-regulation and self-reflection for managing knowledge, and putting the developed knowledge into practice in a geographically dispersed working environment. Through symbols,

234

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

members give significance, shape and continuity to lived experiences. Organisational members use forethought to motivate themselves in an anticipatory way. In this research, learning is seen as identical shared cognitive schema and geographically dispersed shared cognitive schema linked to the interactive learners, knowledge facilitators, and cross department organisational member involvement in the organisation. Individual and collective interactive learners, knowledge facilitators, and innovation dedicated individuals and team members share goals, unify rules, and share strategies and communication modes. Members’ recognition and the geographically dispersed shared cognitive schema of these dedicated individuals and team members refer to geographically dispersed specialties, members’ role distribution, and team task coordination within their geographically dispersed working environment, space and time. The participants discussed the relationship between the collective, the agent, and the mental model through work coupling (Olson & Olson, 2014), structural dimensions (Fransilla et al. 2012), shared work, interconnection and context. Work coupling refers to the existence and nature of dependencies in the execution of shared work. The structural dimension refers to the general pattern of connections between actors, that is, actors’ possibilities of reaching and contacting each other as resources for information and action. In this study, the key determinant of the structural dimension is mutual acquaintance. It brings about the reflection of cognitive schema as connections, constructed in the individual and the collective, and patterns of networks emerging from interest and engagement in the work context. It highlights coordinative KM practice and carrying out best practices that relatively establishes ways of acquiring, communicating and combining existing work-related knowledge and solutions in the shared work process. The key constituents of coordinative learning, knowledge, and innovation are the collaboration and interactions that impact the emergence of knowledge, KM practice that emphasises the role of feedback for shaping common understanding, and putting into practice.

6.2.2.6

Cognitive Constructivism Define OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team

The notion of cognitive schema presented in the discussions is placed closely with Hernes (2004). He demonstrates that cognitive schema in a multidisciplinary team can provide an opportunity for the shared generation of knowledge for process innovation while remaining open to external influence. This study revealed that cognitive schema in a multidisciplinary team can provide an opportunity for learning, shared generation of knowledge, and putting the generated knowledge into practice in a geographically dispersed environment. Members’ cognitive schema provides an understanding and sharing framework without closing the network boundaries and environment that sustain learning, new knowledge development, and executing the new knowledge into action. They also foster and support

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

235

innovation in teams by providing an accurate analysis of the real-time situation of their application. The discussions highlight the perspectives similar to Hernes’s (2004) and Johannessen’s (2013) claims that mental boundary processing occurs through a team or group of individuals. In this study, the participants described learning as individual, groups of individuals and shared cognitive schema, as they all provide an element of predictability that facilitates communication (Dickson, Farris & Verbeke, 2001; Wetzel & Buch, 2000) and a link between team members and individuals for shared experience, and for implementing practices that have been demonstrated by experience to be valuable to individuals and team members. Thus, they act as a context for the interpretation and understanding of new information (Dixon, 2000; Doyle, Kinicki & Keats, 1994; Reychav & Weisberg, 2010). Participants described such shared understandings that support social learning and act as a framework for all learning, new knowledge development, and construct a knowledge link between social interaction of people, functions and technology in making the connection. Participants’ reflections on the shifts in understandings resulting in the satisfaction of a tangible learning need through identical and geographically dispersed shared cognitive schema are of great importance. They provide the structure which affects the scope, type and acceptance of information that is assimilated and interpreted by the team, thereby drawing up the boundaries of new knowledge within and between teams. In this study, participants and their team members seem to possess different knowledge sets and do not necessarily always agree with the knowledge held by others, or they tend to agree at certain times and reuse knowledge in a different situation. The reason is that the focus is on what is best for a particular customer (their students and their internal staff) at a particular time in a particular situation, not upon a macro answer to all problems or situations. Thus, the participants’ discussions revealed that cognitive schema develop learning, knowledge, and innovation, as this gives a shared understanding of purpose and encourages innovation. Responsibility and flexibility are the result of members’ experience at work and an organisation that allows them to do what is right and what can be reproduced in another situation, providing a clear example of the relatively simple rules from which innovation emerges (Quintane et al., 2011). Participants working and interacting produce a range of innovation behaviours at the collective level. Similarly, seeking feedback, accepting feedback, and giving feedback—which are obvious actions taken by organisational members—illustrate the concept of shifting cognitive schema. The continuous process of reconstructing processes and procedures, risk taking, experimenting, modifying, adjusting, revising, creating a way out and discovering new opportunities in connection with innovation for improvement are apparent in these discussions and in accordance with Weick’s (2001) discussion of sensemaking in organisations. Generative learning might take place when individuals and groups within organisations mainly use intuition, attention and dialogue and aim to question any explicate order (Chiva, Grandío, & Alegre, 2010). In this study, all participants spoke of their

236

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

collective dialogue and communicative practice, knowledge sharing, access, development, management processes, and their access to peers and others via a myriad of distance channels for implementing solutions. Participants discussed travelling, working in co-located areas, and distributing knowledge to and from distant locations, actions that that promote a shift in understanding, which occurs in the action or interaction and through reflection on their past and similar experience at various locations in their geographically dispersed working environment. Participants also referred to adopting change, encouraging change processes, recycling (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011) the same input to produce more output, reflecting on their experience in one node being shared to another site, and contemplating their discussions of their interactive KM practice, execution of practices, and their learning experiences. Generative learning is concerned with the emergence of new understandings in terms of context and with reference to the literature on reflective practice (Argyris & Schön, 1978). The participants discussed a change in the set of perspectives (Tosey & Mathison, 2008), leading to a transformation of who ‘we’ (the members) are. It was evident in the participants’ discussion that organisational members learn to perceive in terms of the situations, and members go beyond the context of personality and look at the situation that influences the shaping of personality traits. The individuals become irrelevant, especially when they are co-located at distance sites. In doing so, the world is seen from a holistic point of view. Maznevski and Chudoba (2000) discussed the idea that a global geographically dispersed team’s cultural composition may be an influential structural characteristic, and integration processes are likely to be the key to good performance. Several literature sources reveal the problematic nature of culture. Bosch-Sijtsema, Ruohomäki and Vartiainen (2009, p. 539) claim that organisational strategy, culture and identity contribute to the team’s and individual’s knowledge work, and for globally geographically dispersed teams, a group composition that crosses different cultures is an important factor that can both stimulate and hinder the outcomes of the team. Based on the literature, Bosch-Sijtsema et al., (2009) propose that an organisational structure, culture and strategy that support sharing and the reusing of knowledge are beneficial for knowledge work productivity. In this study, participants feel being part of an organisation (identity) and implement reward systems that support individuals, teams and business units in everyday work involvement, knowledge work processes, and executing new ideas are beneficial for work productivity and improving organisational performance. Organisational schematic sets and cognitive schema disclose interrelated attributes to those at the individual and collective levels. Allee (1997) stated that mental boundaries are ‘important cornerstones for building knowledge and defining some of the cognitive processes that support change and learning’ (p. 11). During communication, people from collectivistic cultures may greatly concentrate on the activation of those cognitive schemas, which determines their socially acceptable and expected behaviours (Alavi & McCormick, 2004; Johnson-Laird, 1983). Hofstede (2001) and Triandis (1995) claim that paying simultaneous attention to both environmental factors and reflection aimed at learning may be cognitively difficult, especially in collectivistic cultures in which the attention to norms, values, and interpersonal relations is highly emphasised. However, Alavi

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

237

and McCormick (2004) suggest that when a school is embedded in a high societal collectivism and future orientation culture, working collectively and forming shared visions are more likely to be effective. Spicer (1998) suggests potential synergies that exist between cognitive schema and cognitive maps, outlines their heuristic value, and identifies how they can be used together to further one’s understanding of OL and knowledge development. New perspectives in cognitive science in the conceptualization of cognitive schema and their role in learning and knowledge process management (Evans & Baker, 2012; Glick, Chermack, Luckel & Gauck, 2012; Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011) provide some indications about the characteristics of the individual and perspectives in interaction. They also suggest the value of collective learning and the environmental influences on its development. In this study, the participants have shown that learning, KM practices, and shared perceptions regarding innovation emerges in their geographically dispersed working environment, regardless of the type of work they undertake. This finding is in conflict with Kanchana et al., (2011) statement that the relationship between learning and innovation is a result of effective leadership influence in KM processes. This study argues that the relationship between learning, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed work environment increases as a result of the centrality of changedness and its sophistication of learning, KM activities, and shared experience, which leads to improved organisational effectiveness. Learning through work continues to be a major theme in discussions about learning that contributes to the knowledge of organisations, and executing new solutions into practice. Participants in this study suggest that a learning space at work can be utilised, KM processes can be established, and shared experiences can be achieved for implementing new practices well when an environment which is conducive is enabled. Learning at the geographically dispersed working environment is clearly supported by organisational members, with the aim of providing consistency in performance. The participants also discussed the technical-economic interest of the organisation. The adoption of technological systems, collaboration of human network relationships drives OL, KM practices, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. In this organisation, collaborated individuals and team members lead to formal training, mentoring in the adoption of KM tools, practices, and for carrying out practices at the collective level. Formal learning is also often decontextualised, emphasising the general over the specific, and related to explicit propositional knowledge. Although formal learning can often be collaborative, informal learning primarily supports collaborative learning in this organisation. Informal learning at work arises incidentally in the sociality of the geographically dispersed working environment amongst organisational members. Participants spoke about sharing information with groups of colleagues working together to solve problems or to remove impediments to progress. Informal learning often allowed their learning, knowledge development, and putting developed knowledge in to real experience to be site specific. This learning, KM activities, and improvement approach also encourages the socio-cultural aspects of learning, KM, and innovation processes which contributes to defining the identities of both the individual learners, knowledge facilitators, and engaged team members that

238

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

care to execute innovation processes. In this study, informal learning in a geographically dispersed site also demonstrated the affective, cognitive and social dimensions of the individuals’ and team members’ experiences as they perform their work together. In this study, informal learning often blends seamlessly with the learners’, knowledge facilitators’, and engaged individuals and team members’ usual everyday work in a geographically dispersed environment, making it difficult to separate and identify. In addition, the participants’ discussion revealed that informal learning is often implicit. The learners are frequently unaware of what it is they have learned, developed knowledge, and put developed knowledge into practice making the assessment and recognition of such experiences as learning, KM, and innovation affluent. In this study, much of the learning, KM, and innovation through collective relationship transpire in response to the immediate environment and feedback from the environment. Inline to this finding, more was revealed when the author explored for supplementary examples. The author reviewed the PEI’s documents, shared repository and other systems, which illustrated how a member planned a trip to overseas for teaching. In the shared repository, the member may find a pattern called ‘planning a teaching tenure’. This pattern includes a few steps, such as teaching timetable and duration of stay, travel schedules, lodging and other travel options. The member uses this as a starting point but ‘applying for travel approval’ is also required. An extra step may be added and is a matter of external assimilation: the pattern in the repository will be expanded, but its structure as such will not be changed. What might also happen, however, is that an organisational member may search the repository and find another pattern named ‘applying for research grant approval’. This is not exactly what the organisational member needs here. However, this pattern might still be helpful, and it might be modified for applying for a travel grant instead of a research grant. For this purpose, some different sub-steps are needed. Subsequently, the organisational member could merge both patterns of ‘planning a teaching tenure’ and ‘applying for travel approval’ in order to obtain a new, more complex pattern. This is a matter of external accommodation, with two patterns combined in order to create new knowledge. Through these collective processes, it is evident that the social system can ‘learn’, manage knowledge, and implements new practices. The software determines which parts of a pattern are used more often than others, which are dispensable, and which are essential. Based on the history of patterns and the log files, the system is able to support the emergence of collective knowledge. What takes place here is a co-evolution of the social system and the cognitive systems of those members of the organisation who are involved. The collectively developed patterns may shape the cognitive systems and practice of their organisational members. However, it also works the other way around; the organisational members’ practices may also shape the patterns and improve them over time. This co-evolution may lead to further learning, common understanding, knowledge developments and the constant progress of new knowledge, and putting the developed knowledge into practice. All members of the organisation are encouraged to participate in this collaborated learning process, development of new knowledge, and implementation of

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

239

innovation. It was apparent that everyone in this system could bring in their own experiences and procedural techniques. In this way, all members of the organisation may have an impact on collective learning, procedural knowledge, and organisational effectiveness. This diversity of experiences and ideas supports and facilitates the organisational learning, knowledge-building, and innovation process. Different individual practices combine into new procedural methods (Kimmerle et al. 2010). It was, therefore, evident that organisational members spend more time engaging others for interaction, developing new knowledge, and implementing new solutions and in several circumstances, it is also made accessible at the collective level. The findings of this study contribute to the debate in the literature regarding the relationship between the individual, collective, and the organisation. This study focuses on organisational collective levels geographically dispersed in geographically dispersed locations. The participating members of this organisation discussed how they interact, exchange, provide and acquire knowledge, and put the acquired knowledge into practice. Anyone could bring in information, and information is treated by every member of the organisation on an equal footing. Learning really occurs at an organisational level when previous knowledge is understood and is found useful and applied in a different situation in a diverse environment through the interaction of organisational members. The findings of this study show the potential dynamics of OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. They provide opportunities to combine the processes of individual and collective learning, knowledge, and innovation. This study illustrates individual and collective learning, development of new knowledge, and new ideas that may contribute to adaptation at the organisation’s boundary.

6.2.2.7

Collective Diversity Enables OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team

Diversity is apparent in the participants’ discussion in this study. However, when participants spoke of experiences in which diversity was featured, the discussions reflected immense learning, KM, and innovation practices between individuals and team members in dispersed locations. Diversity is a significant feature that signifies a combination of people from a variety of cultural backgrounds and functional areas (Von Krogh et al., 1997), subsistence of diverse viewpoints and experiences (Peltokorpi et al. 2007) and individuals with different mindsets and mental models (Von Krogh et al., 2008). In the discussions related to the instances of diversity leading to important learning for the individual or team, participants spoke of new ways of doing things, resulting in new knowledge, new experiences of the team members and new energy resulting from the diversity. Diversity points to the critical role for sophistication in learning, KM, and innovation processes. Hackman (2004) argues for diversity in knowledge base, skills, different perspectives, experiences, and views and having the ‘right mix’ of personalities who are sophisticated in collaborative knowledge creation. This study researches the ‘right mix’ and points to an important role for intricate learning, management

240

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

of knowledge, and innovation practices in a geographically dispersed working environment. Using Hackman’s theory, the agents in the new environment adapt to the people, resources, and language of the environment, which enables them to interact using a shared vocabulary. As a result of the imperfect crossover from one environment to another, novelty results and leads to new understanding for both newcomers and experts. Bosch-Sijtsema et al., (2009, p. 537) claim that geographically dispersed teams make more effective decisions and generate unique ideas and solutions. They define geographically dispersed teams as team members working in different locations with geographical distance from each other. In this study, geographically dispersed team members’ trust of other members is considered a determining factor in the effectiveness of the activities required for the coordination of actions. Trust also increases cooperation and transforms the interaction amongst team members in collaborating for interaction, developing new knowledge, and carrying out new practices in a geographically dispersed environment. Akehurst et al., (2011) suggest that if one wants to know how the world is transformed, how learning and experience are accumulated and how knowledge is created, one should perform an in-depth examination of how physical, technical and social reality is interwoven with human action. In this study, the participants also discussed myriad types of working space, such as travelling and co-locate with teams, a virtual space in which members meet and collaborate with the help of information and communication technology, a physical social space in which people meet formally and informally, a meeting room, a coffee break room and the mental space, which is the personal space of an individual (e.g. feelings and mental maps) through which an individual perceives and interprets other spaces. High and motivated participation of their members and team empowerment are positively tied to their performance as it relates to process improvements and customer satisfaction. The available technology can be seen as a resource provided to the organisation’s global teams. The quality and novelty of technology, the amount of communication, the relationships amongst team members and newcomers, and team commitment and trust have been found to influence team effectiveness, efficiency, and performance. The notions of diversity in this study align closely with Choo and Alvarenga Neto (2010), who claim that not only new forms of organisations, but also new forms of learning, knowing, and implementing will emerge (Jakubik, 2011) from the diversity of community members (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009). In this study, diversity in the team members and in the work environment was apparent in the participants’ discussions, as well as how diverse and changing environments lead to learning, generation of new knowledge, and innovation of the collective. This is a significant finding from an innovation viewpoint and one which motivates discussion about the relationship between learning, KM, and innovation processes in a geographically dispersed environment. The participants’ discussion revealed a focus on collective relationships and learning through common understanding, the generation of new knowledge, and improving organisational performance. This suggests a significant relationship between learning, knowledge, and innovation which influences the impending link

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

241

between learning, knowledge, and innovation approaches in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Participants discussed members’ learning, shared experience, knowledge development, and the innovation that occurs when their shared knowledge generates new and common insights in the organisation. Thus, members’ learning in their environment allows the development, acquisition, transformation and exploitation of new knowledge that enhances innovation. Sanz-Valle et al. (2011, p. 999) claims that OL has a positive effect on technical innovation, allowing the development, acquisition, transformation and exploitation of new knowledge. Quintane et al., (2011) assert that innovation can be new to a specific situation, but not to the rest of the world; the authors emphasise that novelty is relative to the individuals judging it. Van de Ven (1986) proposes that as ‘long as the idea is perceived as new to the people involved, it is an “innovation” , even though it may appear to others to be an imitation or something that exists elsewhere’ (p. 2). Similarly, Daft (1978) suggests that ‘the idea can be old with regard to other organisations so long as the idea has not previously been used by the adopting organisations’ (p. 5). In this study, participants’ learning experienced in one site, the ideas generated in one site, and the fact that context is shared and adopted in another site are considered novel to the members involved. Furthermore, individuals and team members’ shared understanding and experiences are based on their actions; and implemented local practices that have been understood and utilised by a department have been found out to be useful to other geographically dispersed sites. This study suggests that learning, KM, and innovation is an outcome of the participants’ engagement with work and with common interest, which directs focus to the creativity involved in social interaction in a geographically dispersed working environment. Success factors include the mechanisms of learning and the processes involved in managing the knowledge used in developing innovations (Miller, Zhao & Calantone, 2006). According to Miller and Morris (1998), innovation is ‘an expression of learning that occurred as a process of mutually dependent problem solving among members of diverse communities’ (p. 122). Kennedy’s (2006, 2010) studies portray innovation as a daily feature of survival in a dynamic context. In this study, change and innovation are portrayed as important features that occur every day to bolster the growth and sustainability of the organisation.

6.2.2.8

Tangible Learning Needs Enables OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team

The connection of OL, KM, and innovation in this study contributes a different viewpoint. Insights into conceptions of OL are offered in the literature review from the cognitive possession perspective, where learning is seen as a process and knowledge is seen as the result of that process (Bertels & Savage, 1998, p. 19). Thus, learning is equated with the creation of a piece of knowledge. The findings of this study emphasise an environment which influences individuals and team members

242

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

learning, developing, using, creating, sharing knowledge, and executing new practices. The organisational structures provide direction and support for learning, knowledge, and innovation process activities, with empowered team members working in cross-functional matrix team structures influenced by leaders who support social interaction, the development of knowledge, and putting new solutions into practice that occurs on individual and collective levels of collective relationships. The participants discussed their individual learning within team members. This learning behaviour resulted in understanding others who have different perceptions, which requires knowledge about how to come to a common understanding. The participants spoke about the personal characteristics of proactive colleagues working with colleagues in other locations with common interests and how this contributed to the usable knowledge of the collective. Literature reviews about acquisition of knowledge theories suggest that knowledge is definite and stable. However, an important finding in this study is social interactivity, intrinsic motivation, architectural dynamics, shared understanding enables learning, KM, and innovation practices. In this organisation, team members developed, maintained, shared and exploited knowledge based on the feedback from individuals, team members and from workers at different geographical locations. Kennedy (2010, p. 282) emphasises the generation of new knowledge as a result of the iterative interaction of dynamic collectives in practice. This study also places similar emphasis on the important role of team members in mobilizing learning, collective relationships and contributing to both knowledge production and knowledge integration, and practical implementation of innovation. The outcomes from this collective relationship of the collective are strengthened within the collective. Thus, engagement of individuals and team members for social interaction centres on learning, active, dynamic generation of new knowledge, and practical implementation of innovation within the geographically dispersed working environment.

6.2.3 Conclusions: Theory of the Factors Facilitating OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team The discussion above concerning the phenomenon of the learning, KM, and innovation practices occurring in a geographically dispersed working environment extends the approaches in which the experience of participants in this study corresponds to theories of OL, KM, and innovation. The OL, KM, and innovation experiences of the participants in this study develop through collective relationships on individual and collective levels. They exploit diversity, and new knowledge emerges and implemented through collective relationships, collective networks and collaborative practices for organisational improvement.

6.2 Theory of the Factors Facilitating the Relationship …

243

The organisational members’ experience presents some novel and fresh perspectives to the theories available in contemporary literature, especially the association between the social relationship and networks that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members, the knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities facilitating OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members and the social cognitive schema in geographically dispersed individual and collective facilitating emergent learning, KM, and innovation. The previous section illustrated the interdependence of OL, KM, and innovation. This raises further interest concerning organisations in the geographically dispersed environment of collective learning, organisational knowledge management, and innovation practices. The study revealed a myriad of OL, KM, and innovation mechanisms and suggests that organisations can learn, knowledge is manageable, and that members can practically implement innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. Connecting organisational members in ways that contribute to learning, organisational knowledge, and executing innovation through their engagement in a geographically dispersed working environment and through providing enabling conditions provides opportunities for the organisation to benefit from the experience of its members’ interaction providing insights, and learning that can contribute to its competitiveness in a dynamic environment. The collective relationships and networks, organisational characteristics and structures, and, tacit and overt values enable OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. This study revealed that OL, KM, and innovation processes are socially embedded and is inherent in organisational mechanisms for coordination and organisational procedures, which in turn, are deeply influenced by the factors in a geographically dispersed environment. The discussion of social, architectural, and cultural innovation concepts depicting the factors, characteristics, and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed environment are presented. This study developed the individual and collective levels to explain the links between OL, KM, and innovation processes in a geographically dispersed environment.

6.3 Conclusion The theory discussed the emergent themes highlighting the factors that encapsulate social, architectural, and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private educational organisation. The findings of this study imply that opportunity exists for the intertwinement of OL, KM, and innovation approaches in a geographically dispersed individuals and team members. This study showed that the day-to-day OL, KM, and innovation processes within a PEI which has geographically dispersed individuals and team members and the collective networks reflect practical implementation of innovation characteristics in

244

6 Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Integrated

organisational members’ communication patterns, in the quality of their connections, in their need for interdependence and in their potential for spontaneous adaptation. This chapter highlights the enabling settings for the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private educational organisation. The findings of this study present an integrated analysis of OL, KM, and innovation. This study asserts that social, architectural and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms facilitate OL, the development, acquisition, transformation and exploitation of knowledge, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in a private educational organisation. This chapter presented a processual approach to OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private educational organisation that addresses organisational problems and contributes to the evolution of organisational forms and practices. Theoretical exposition integrating OL, KM, and innovation with reference to the three converging themes is offered in the next chapter. The broad implications for future research and implications for practice are discussed in the concluding chapter.

Chapter 7

Conclusion

7.1 Introduction Recent studies (Serenko, Bontis, Booker, Sadeddin, & Hardie, 2010) presented OL about the acquisition of knowledge. Few researches have also looked at how acquired knowledge is shared in organisations (Argote, 2012; Berkes, 2009; Hsu, Ju, Yen, & Chang, 2007; Kennedy, 2010). Research has also shown that embedding OL in firms enable innovation (Johannessen & Skaalsvik, 2015; Senge, 1990). A prominent dominance of learning-based view of innovation in the organisations is revealed in the recent studies (Dai, 2012; Purcarea, del Mar Benavides Espinosa, & Apetrei, 2013; Sanz-Valle et al., 2011). A growing trend towards knowledge-based view of innovation was offered in the extant literatures (An, Deng, Chao, & Bai, 2014; Belkahla Hakimi, Triki, & Mjahed Hammami, 2014; Donate & Guadamillas, 2011; Tatiana & Aino, 2012). However, these studies revealed a growing concern for exploring the interaction of OL, KM, and innovation processes in the organisations (Kanchana et al., 2011; Kennedy, 2010; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013). This concern highlights an important problem for organisations in search of more effective OL, KM, and innovation practices in ‘globally dispersed units’ (Schleimer & Riege, 2009, p.28). These fewer studies revealed consensus on the link between OL, KM, and innovation and on the whole very significant need for empirical exploration in geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in a private educational organisation needs more understanding. This study presents an integrated elaboration of OL, KM, and innovation practices rather than their discrete discussions. OL, KM, and innovation has been studied in various fields and industries such as Connell et al. (2014) extended four industry clusters covering Australia and Dubai, wine industry (Doloreux & Lord-Tarte, 2013), health care settings (Sheng et al., 2013) and even more fragmented is literature in the domain of higher education and training (Jarvi, 2012). Less attention has been paid to private higher education providers operating in a geographically dispersed environment. The gap in these studies needed to look at the factors, characteristics and mechanisms to explore a specific industry type, work place type, organisational scale, characteristics and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0_7

245

246

7 Conclusion

structure that influence OL, KM, and innovation experiences and this study offered a new perspective. It addressed the clear silence in the extant literature and explored the broad research question what are the relationships of OL, KM, and innovation in geographicallydispersed individuals and team members? In the course of this study, the research question ‘What are the factors that enable the relationship of organisationallearning, knowledge management and innovation in geographicallydispersed individuals and team members?’ emerged from the participants’ discourses and this book developed an argument in which the factors enable OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed educational environment. This book has addressed the research gap in exploring the factors drawing attention to social innovation (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Taatila et al., 2006), architectural innovation (Balestrin et al., 2008; Leiponen & Helfat, 2010) and cultural innovation (Johannessen, 2013; Xu, 2011) facilitating OL, KM and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. The intertwinement of OL, KM, and innovation exploring their common characteristics among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation surrounding the themes are discussed in this book. This study constructed theory integrating the factors, characteristics and mechanisms through innovation concepts and surrounding the themes as follows: • Social relationship and networks facilitates OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team • Knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities facilitates OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team • Social cognitive schema among members of a geographically dispersed team facilitate emergent learning, KM, and innovation This study offers linkages made between concepts, categories, and themes to each other in terms of their properties and dimensions. The core category organisational structures and organisational characteristics captured in a few words the major theme that presented. This overarching theme reveals the essence of the study and enabled all other categories and concepts to be integrated around it in chapter 5 in this book to form the theoretical explanation and build theory about what are the factors that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. In this concluding chapter, development of argument that collective relationship and networks; organisational characteristics and structures; and tacit and overt values are the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences of geographically dispersed individuals and team members are reviewed with reference to its contribution to the body of knowledge, implications for further research and implications for managers and employers are suggested.

7.2 Theory Exposition

247

7.2 Theory Exposition This study focussed on behaviours, relationships and therefore the choice of methodology needed to be qualitative approach which is said to be ‘iterative, interactive, hermeneutic, at times, and most certainly open’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 183). This research study attempted to offer new insights into a variety of inner experiences of the participants for developing theoretical explanations through identifying general concepts that reach beyond the known. Therefore, constructivist grounded theory research (Charmaz, 2006) focused on the place of the author as the author in the book description, author’s relationship with the participants, and the importance of writing in constructing the final theory that remains grounded in the data (Charmaz, 2006). Henceforth, this research paradigm frames the OL, KM, and innovation focusing research aim in understanding the geographically dispersed individuals and team members in an educational organisation. The use of grounded theory methodology provides a strong research base for the findings, which are developed in close reference to the informing theory. The research blends methodological approaches in relation to the research question and to the theory. The research question focused on ‘what are the factors that enable the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members?’ Thus, the extant literature review and the research question clearly established the importance of a qualitative research and in understanding the participants working in a geographically dispersed educational organisation and suggested the need for a research methodology that was able to build theory based on participants’ discourses. This study was naturally situated within constructivist paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) and focussed on the multiple details offered by the participants about their experiences in a geographically dispersed educational organisation. The connections they made between meanings and actions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) within their educational institute located in geographically dispersed environment were described. From an ontological standpoint, constructivist paradigm recognises local and specific constructed realities. In this study, participants from a large private educational institution discussed the nature of social learning, development of knowledge, flow of knowledge between individuals and team members with shared awareness and experiences are based on their actions; and implemented practices that have been proven by experience to be valuable to them in geographically dispersed sites. These experiences of the members reflect the properties and mechanisms of social, architectural, and cultural innovation theory in several dimensions. This study explained how OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team are shaped around the discussion of themes emergent from participants’ discourses. OL, KM, and innovation in this study is characterised by what factors enabled organisational members’ behaviours in a geographically dispersed environment, which led the author in attempting to understand more through participants’ experiences. This study discussed factors that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in a

248

7 Conclusion

geographically dispersed environment encapsulating three themes. These themes and factors are established within innovation theories through which OL, KM, and innovation experience in geographically dispersed individuals and team members were discussed. Hence, these themes were developed in an investigation across multiple fields of literature, which allowed the author to increase understanding of the emergent categories: • The first theme, social relationship and networks facilitate OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team is discussed about what these organisational members exchange. The potential values of these social learning and sharing experiences refer to the learning, construction of knowledge through social interaction, and implementing new ideas across geographical boundaries. Individuals and team members with similar interest self-organise or congregate with team members electronically or co-locate to engage social interactivity and sharing for constructing knowledge and putting new ideas into practice. • The overarching theme, knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities facilitates OL, KM, and innovation among members of a geographically dispersed team revealed their construction of knowledge through social interaction. The nature of the individual’s and collective’s social relations provide channels through which knowledge is shared for achieving shared experiences. The performance of organisational members and most importantly their nature of traveling and co-locating to connect with others to actively process new knowledge by putting into practice to a new situation with common understanding are illustrated. Knowledge flows through individuals and team members by means of social interaction; while engaging through adoption of technology; measuring, controlling and monitoring performance; and during formal and informal training. Such learning created a shared identity as a natural performance of individual identities. Shared identity of members allowed them to achieve control through empowerment for putting new skills into practice in a geographically dispersed environment. In its critical discussion of the findings, this overarching theme reveals the essence of the study and enabled all other categories and concepts to be integrated around it to form the theoretical explanation. • Third theme, social cognitive schema among members of a geographically dispersed team facilitate emergent learning, KM, and innovation revealed experiences of these organisational members’ shared common understanding which refers to the cognitive schema. Cognitive schema is constructed through social interactions, formal and informal conversations; on the job experience, and by means of role models; providing, and seeking feedback between individuals and team members. Socialisation provides the means whereby new diverse members of this organisation develop consensual schema and support implementing best practices that have been proven by experience to be valuable to individuals and team members.

7.2 Theory Exposition

249

This research attempted to close the gap and analysed the experience of organisational members. This was achieved through discourse by grounding a substantial discussion in real examples of geographically dispersed individuals and team members’ learning, the way they developed, manipulated, applied knowledge, and executed new practices. It explored the phenomena within a geographically dispersed educational environment and supported the emergence of a fresh point of view of the factors that enabled their interaction, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed individuals and team members. While a few theories about how learning and knowledge in organisations influence innovation are formed through interactions were apparent, an integrated elaboration of the relationship of three disciplines about OL, KM and innovation in a geographically dispersed educational environment required an empirical exploration and adds to the current body of extant literature. It explored the phenomena within the geographically dispersed individuals and team members and supported the emergence of a fresh point of view of their fusion and their relationship. In this study, the emergent theory, contextual specifics of the organisation, emergent interactions with participants and changing understandings concerning the phenomenon of individual and collective learning during the conduct of this study have together created a unique, novel configuration of relations in time–space that will never again be repeated. This building upon the past yet as if new character of the work is particularly evident in this investigation when relations of difference are juxtaposed. For example, this is demonstrated in the discussion surrounding the factors and mechanisms encapsulating social, architectural and cultural innovation concepts facilitating the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation experiences in a geographically dispersed educational environment to provide a more transdisciplinary perspective to existing theories of individual and collective learning grounded in organisational studies. The emergence of innovation through organisational experience was shown in this study to be unique. The findings offer some clarification of current conceptions of innovation and their relevance to geographically dispersed work organisations. This study discussed the geographically dispersed members’ learning characteristics and mechanisms, KM processes and innovation practices in supporting their organisational counterparts in understanding work related problems and managing procedures towards improving their performance as well as increasing organisational performance. This study also reflected the nature of individuals and team members who are responsible to support the groups dispersed in geographically dispersed sites through social learning processes, managing knowledge and implementing practices that have been proven by experience to be valuable to individuals and team members in a geographically dispersed environment. In this study the participants spoke about organisational members’ shared knowledge and the learning processes across geographically dispersed boundaries. The participants of this study spoke about communication mediums used when interacting with groups for work related practices, acquiring and storing the work related procedures with members located in distant sites. The proactive individuals coached their

250

7 Conclusion

colleagues at geographically dispersed sites by sharing teaching and learning practices, demonstrating problem solving techniques in achieving the organisational goal. Also the task of these individuals coaching the groups in geographically dispersed sites reflected learning, shared understanding, and created new processes in a different situation. Thus, this study reflected that knowledge is geographically dispersed, active, and embedded in social interaction, which support sharing knowledge for shared understanding, learning, reusing, replicating, and change flexibly for practical implementation of new knowledge in a geographically dispersed environment. This study discussed the self-effort of diverse individuals engaging others for interacting, sharing knowledge which were accessible via shared network repositories and through individuals’ experience in making team members in dispersed sites to understand and apply similar practices. The members’ passion for seeking and providing feedback about their understanding of problems and handling problems based on group’s common understanding for resolving matters were discussed. Individuals who are experts in their own domain voluntarily communicated with colleagues sharing similar work and formed their own informal groups sharing identity for improving work related practices. Therefore, in this study, the individual and collective’s cognitive schema supported organisational members for emergent learning. In this study participant discussions revealed implementing practices that have been proven by experience to be valuable to individuals and team members in a geographically dispersed environment. Individuals and team members who travel and co-locate across geographical sites support other members to interpret, learn to adopt new skills in a similar situation are discussed. This research also revealed that individuals and team members learning in a geographically dispersed environment are entwined affecting new knowledge creation and increasing effectiveness. The organisational experience focused on behaviours that encouraged learning, managing knowledge and practically implementing innovation amongst members in geographically dispersed sites. The construction of the organisation as a learning entity illustrates that learning, KM, and innovation occurred at individual and collective levels facilitated through their make-up of collective relationships and networks; nature of organisational characteristics which provides conduits for adopting organisational structures during the course of their social interaction; and implementing practices with their social cognitive schema in a geographically dispersed environment. This research explicitly challenged the assumption that organisations in dispersed locations cannot learn. This study revealed the social relationships of emergent learning behaviour, KM processes across boundaries with shared understanding influences OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in an educational environment. A significant finding was in the construction of meaning regarding the six factors as collective relationships and collective networks; organisational characteristics and organisational structures; tacit and overt values establishing within social, architectural and cultural innovation concepts surrounding the emergent themes. In this research, knowledge was understood to be distributed across geographical boundaries used by individual and team members for interaction and learning

7.2 Theory Exposition

251

influencing positive effect on innovation. It was apparent that dispersed individuals and team members can learn, and the geographically dispersed knowledge and learning will impact innovation. KM processes were the members’ share knowledge for both explicit and implicit knowledge sharing in geographically dispersed sites and learning in formal and informal manner result in generating new knowledge. A positive relationship between the intention to share knowledge across geographical boundaries and learn with individuals and team members was significant in this finding, which indicates that the fundamental influence and ultimate determinant of voluntary behaviour might be the intention to enact social interaction, learning, knowledge-sharing, and executing new practices across geographically dispersed boundaries influencing innovation. This study’s overarching theme revealed knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation i among members of a geographically dispersed team in an educational organisation. Knowledge is socially embedded in social interaction among organisational members and they used the organisational resources to connect with others. They travelled across geographically dispersed sites and co-located to orientate and exploit knowledge repositories and problemsolving approaches. This also reflects as a knowledge flow, which is the way developed knowledge is shared through formal and informal training between individuals and team members. Training they received improved their shared understanding and focused on attributes of performance as significant to maintaining flexibility in organisational members’ behaviour. Such learning created a shared identity that allowed them to be empowered for carrying out new practices in a geographically dispersed environment. Finally, this book demonstrated that OL, KM and innovation were shown to emerge in the activity of geographically dispersed organisational members in the performance of their work, due to their motivation to maintain collective level effectiveness. This study clearly shows the factors encapsulating social, architectural and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate the members’ motivation, passion, opportunity, pro-activeness and commitment to learning, exchange knowledge and implement innovation in a geographically dispersed environment. This study considers trust and empowerment which is embedded in a structure because they exist mutually exclusive of the relationship. OL, KM, and innovation process can be seen in geographically dispersed individuals and team members’ practice. The study pointed to a range of strategies for learning, management of knowledge, and innovation across geographically dispersed individuals and team members that are well represented at the broadest level in the literature as ‘empowerment enhances an individual’s or group’s capacity to make purposive choices and to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes’ (Alsop et al., 2005, p. 1). Grinsven and Visser (2011) assert that empowerment affects second-order learning in a positive sense and suggest that empowering ‘lower-level employees to take on more decisionmaking responsibilities is likely to lead to more creativity, reflection on governing values, and development of new solutions’ (p. 386). Fox et al. (2013) and Johannessen (2013) claim that organisations adapting their management context to encourage

252

7 Conclusion

knowledge generation and innovation processes results in an increase in innovation results. In this study, shared understanding, collective beliefs, unwritten rules as experiences of the relation between OL, KM, and application of new ideas in diverse geographically dispersed individuals and team members are revealed.

7.3 Contribution of This Study The study addressed the research gap and made contributions to the body of knowledge in several fields. This study widened the understanding of the factors that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in an educational organisation. Author contributed to the knowledge about the grounded theory approach of inquiry in a large PEI in Singapore operating in geographically dispersed sites. The author contributed to the grounded theory methodological approach by building the substantive theory as well as providing input into developing theories of innovation (Kennedy, 2006, 2010; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In this study, the author has identified substantive theories, reflected through journal writing and memos. Pilot tests were performed to ensure formal categories are applicable to data and they were found to be fit and work. The original contribution to the integration across the fields of OL, KM and underpinned by innovation across geographically dispersed educational organisation through its theoretical and empirical support was accomplished. Implications for OL, KM, and innovation through an interdisciplinary approach, intertwinement of disciplines, factors that facilitate the interaction of disciplines were presented in this book. It contributed fresh points of view to each of the fields through their integration in a geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in an educational organisation. The prevailing viewpoint in the KM literature is to consider that an innovation comes from a process of knowledge exchange and recombination (Galunic & Rodan, 1998; Quintane et al., 2011), which is also coherent with the model developed by Kennedy (2010). Du Plessis (2007) claims that KM assists in building competencies required in the innovation process. Knowledge in the extant literature has been recognised to play an important role as an organisational attribute in fostering innovation (Barker, 2015; Kennedy, 2010; Oluikpe, 2015; Quintane et al., 2011) and models of innovation (Murray & Blackman, 2006) detail the type of knowledge processes that facilitate the creation of knowledge. This study revealed that the OL with shared understanding generate new ideas, manage knowledge across geographically dispersed members and will implement innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. The core category and the overarching theme of this study reveals that knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities facilitates OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in an educational organisation supporting all other categories and concepts to be integrated around it to build theory.

7.3 Contribution of This Study

253

This study is different from the extant literature which focuses on the various ways in which knowledge is developed in geographically dispersed individuals and team members and the ways in which it is validated and utilised. Furthermore, this study presents how the organisation is able to support learning, manage knowledge and implement innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members and dynamic environment. The integrated model (see Fig. 4.2) in this study reveals the factors that facilitate OL, KM processes and application of ideas across geographically dispersed individuals and team members requires them to develop clear understandings of their own schema and shared understandings generating emergent learning. This study offers the significance of the factors encapsulating social, architectural and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation experiences of the geographically dispersed individuals and team members. These factors influence: • members’ ability to exchange, combine learning through social relationship and networks, manage knowledge and innovation processes • by providing access to exchange members in a geographically dispersed environment by traveling and co-location for a period of time that provide opportunities for learning, develop new knowledge and putting into practice • by increasing the motivation to manage knowledge; deploying diversity of members to develop social consensual understanding; giving access to resources necessary for emergent learning; committing exchanges, and for practical implementation of innovation. The findings made obvious a wide range of OL, knowledge facilitation and improvement processes, and execution of innovation. In line with extant literature, it is suggested that although KM practices are important on their own for innovation purposes, in this study it is apparent that when collective relationships and networks self-organise; when organisational characteristics and structures are established well; and when socialising with diverse members allows for improving tacit and overt values for shared understanding, the end result helps individuals and team members to work effectively, improve their performance, and increase organisational performance. Whilst this study implemented a theoretical principle, this study also shows it can be applied in practice. The following section presents the contributions to the knowledge in the practice field of the private education organisation chosen for this study.

7.4 Implications for Practice The findings of this research present numerous implications for both managers and employees working in organisational teams, and authors in the academic environment. The novelty lies in which the elements suggested are integrated by people in certain settings is to some extent different each time. This is not same always as found

254

7 Conclusion

in organisational members’ experiences or what is written in the industry white papers depicting ceaseless picture. Practices may be differentiated within organisational context on many characteristics and mechanisms that enable OL, KM, and implementation of innovation. Thus, the practical implications suggested depict sufficient space for variety in each organisation. These implications will be discussed further in the subsequent sections. The key determinant of the effects of different types of experience on OL, KM, and innovation processes and outcomes differ, research is advanced by a fine-grained characterisation of experience. In order to foster learning, manage knowledge and implement innovation, companies must make efforts to also create an environment to support social interaction, develop their KM approaches and execute innovation practices. Therefore, this study reveals the blending of factors that facilitate OL, KM and innovation approaches in organisations. The implications of these results for practitioners are clear. Establishing a clearer link between the factors that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation processes may make it easier for managers to understand the trade-offs between developing and managing knowledge on the one hand, and to implement an innovation that may exist geographically dispersed in dispersed geographical locations of the organisation on the other hand. The findings guide managers’ efforts in achieving OL, KM and innovation for increasing effectiveness and organisational performance in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in an educational organisation. The great strength of this qualitative research is that it ‘explores a particular phenomenon or experience in great detail’ (Willig, 2008, pp. 16–17). Therefore, readers are able to realize the degree to which the findings have ‘resonance’ or ‘relevance’ to their own situations. Thus, the findings can either confirm readers’ experiences or provide fresh insight and understanding for informing action (Butler-Kisber, 2010). In addition, as Colley (2012) comments, ‘individual case studies provide us with exemplars’ (p. 17) which are ‘essential’ for theoretical development. This study provided fresh perspectives in the areas that required more understanding and provided a fuller perspective about the characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members in a private educational organisation. The broad implication for practice is explored. OL, KM and innovation phenomenon highlights the emergence of outcomes resulting from the interaction of geographically dispersed individual and collective levels. In this study, it is agreed that at the individual and collective level, OL, KM, and innovation practices can be conceptualised as the emergent properties of the organisational members interacting within a geographically dispersed system. This study does impact a consideration of organisations in terms of OL, KM and innovation.

7.4 Implications for Practice

255

7.4.1 Social Relationship and Networks Facilitates OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of Geographically Dispersed Team This study questions the perspectives of learning, KM and innovation approaches in geographically dispersed individuals and team members working in an educational organisation and strengthens discussion on the definition of ‘the learner’ (see Kennedy, 2006, 2010). This research also shares the OL, KM and innovation processes to the human and social aspects of an organisation accommodating emergent learning, knowledge as social, active and geographically dispersed across geographical boundaries, and putting developed knowledge into practice.

7.4.1.1

Share Context and Share Identity

When a shared collective identity is prominent, team members are inclined to be loyal, trusting and concerned about promoting the welfare of group (Brewer & Miller, 1996). Interpersonal communication in this study is shown as formal and informal in geographically dispersed teams which are enhanced when teams have a strong shared identity. Shared context allows team members to have access to the same information and share the same resources, work processes and work culture. Sharing context makes teams to co-orient to a particular approach, develop shared understanding and establish shared understanding (Hinds & Bailey, 2003). Aside from employers and organisations, this research also carries implications for employees. Employees possess shared identity over their work environment in geographically dispersed sites. Through the demonstration of strong engagement with learning, shared identity and a shared context, an emergent state develops in a team and will moderate the relationship between geographic distribution and tasks.

7.4.1.2

Encourage Collaboration and Ad-Hoc Communications

Learning is shown in this study to emerge from individual and collective effort in geographically dispersed sites, reflecting a positive attitude in a geographically dispersed working environment. The findings suggest that the geographically dispersed individuals and team members facilitate the engagement of organisations from offering learning and development opportunities through intra-organisational and social comparisons. An opportunity rich or engaged organisation offers intricate work and encourages its employees to learn. An engaged worker participates in learning activities and is motivated to learn. Thus, job rotation and on-the-job-training are suggested by Naegele and Walker (2006) to improve the efficacy of training and development sourced via the geographically dispersed working environment. The

256

7 Conclusion

introduction of job rotation and other work environment-based training opportunities such as job swap or secondments also has the potential to overcome barriers to learning due to repetitive or simplistic work. Informal social interactions that occur among organisational members is a team process that reflects behavioral activities of the team members and helps building team dynamics between distant colleagues (Nardi & Whittaker, 2002; Jarvi, 2012), enable knowledge flow among organisational members working in geographically dispersed sites, and putting new ideas into practice. Collaboration and informal communication allows team members to learn informally about what others are doing, enabling them to identify and solve problems (see Kiesler & Cummings, 2002; Tzabbar, & Vestal, 2014). This study highlights the informal communication which reflects team members’ ability to establish and maintain a shared identity building social connectedness across geographically dispersed teams. Social connectedness and embeddedness of knowledge refers to how behaviour organisations are affected by networks of social relations. Knowledge of organisational members’ skills, techniques and know-how, and rudimentary routine kind is experience-based; it can only be shown by means of practice in a particular context and transmitted through networks of human relations complementing technological channels, team dynamics and coaching.

7.4.2 Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms and Activities Facilitates OL, KM, and Innovation Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team This study highlights OL, knowledge and innovation processes as emergent in social interaction, knowledge as social, active and distributed and innovation as implementing new ideas and skills increasing effectiveness. This study revealed that, collaboration of organisational members in geographically dispersed sites generates emergent phenomena through the accumulated behaviour of many geographically dispersed members. It is apparent in this study that team members traveling for work, working in co-located geographically dispersed environments for a period of time create new relationships and interactions within any geography; this generates diversity and flexibility through those geographically dispersed interconnections. This study focusses on KM mechanisms across boundaries using technology and processes, geographically dispersed knowledge networks connecting people in distance, sharing resources through shared network drives and systems for connecting with people, and for empowering individuals and team members for shared understanding.

7.4 Implications for Practice

7.4.2.1

257

Collaborate Through Network of Human Relations Complementing Technology

Learning-at-work, specifically with the phenomenon of collective learning, and the role of social interaction are highlighted in this study. How members manage relationship by contributing, collaborating in learning, managing knowledge and development of collective insight in carrying out practices is strengthened by the findings of this study. These findings may be relevant and the value of learning to practice at work in society. Kennedy (2006) demonstrated that workplaces do provide opportunities that enable individuals to acquire new workplace knowledge that can be applied effectively to solve real workplace problems. This research, like others cited earlier, illustrates organisational members’ preference to work with others, how they manage relationships with other members working in distant sites, trust individuals and team members in sharing knowledge, inquisitive learning behaviour, adopting knowledge management processes, and putting new skills into practices. The implication for practice, of course, is to provide opportunities for such interaction in forming team dynamics for learning, to use KM systems to produce, integrate, and manage knowledge, and implement innovation approaches.

7.4.2.2

Develop Team Dynamics for Learning, Interpreting Knowledge and Executing Innovation

Geographically dispersed educational organisations need to create an environment for organisational members’ social interaction for developing knowledge, manage knowledge, and, execute new ideas into practice. The employees who travelled and were co-located would be required to access stored knowledge and transfer knowledge to other colleagues by providing feedback, seeking feedback and clarifying matters pertaining to work. Employees spoke about performing competitor analysis and this allowed them to collaboratively rethink strategies and new ideas. The matrix project structures and the systems adopted support social schema to interpret knowledge in geographically dispersed sites across different areas. Therefore, organisations need to focus on effectively sharing ideas and solutions experienced successfully in one site to be interpreted and to implement improvised ideas and solutions in another site with shared understanding.

7.4.2.3

Coaching to Dispense Insights for Learning, Developing Knowledge, and for Improving Performance

The fact that developed knowledge is shared through coaching reflects as a knowledge flow, which is the way created knowledge shared through coaching, mentoring, and role modelling between individuals and team members. Contribution of individual and team members’ experience most often involved codified knowledge and media rich channels of communication also meant that behaviour of sharing implicitly

258

7 Conclusion

added to the organisation’s accumulation of knowledge and intellectual capital. Selforganising employees in organisations act as knowledge facilitators assisting other colleagues use knowledge and encourage sense of ownership. They also help other colleagues arrive at a collaborated practice with shared understanding and shared experience. This study reflected geographically dispersed sites which are context-rich, populated by diverse people and things, an environment of positive emotion of members to coach, contribute and collaborate with members in distant sites, and places that are equally rich in problems and learning opportunities to make their colleagues to practically implement innovation. Value is added to individuals using KM mechanisms, interacting with members is distant sites for solving work-related problems using social media and the organisations in which they work, through the acquisition and application of new knowledge to work related problems. This enables people and projects to progress, proving its worth in its success. This study suggests not only to the employers and organisations but also to the employees to adopt electronic media, social media to support social learning that tends to reflect the rapid development and changes in social media networking. Ad-hoc and spontaneous communications can allow managers and employers to adopt ubiquitous home Wi-Finetworks, allow for continuous monitoring of email and instant or Skype messaging in the evening. Such collaborative effort to learn, to discuss the characteristics of the knowledge and practically implement innovation required for geographically dispersed individuals and team members may lead to different structural, networking systems and processes. There was an evolution of terms relating to social learning evident in this study, and repositions it in practice, thus endorsing the legitimacy of learning, emergent knowledge, KM practices, and innovation practices in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Organisational members need to construct understanding and learning of the constructed knowledge through shared experiences. Anderson (1983) claim that cognitive theme is very significant nature of schema because they mediate between experience and learning.

7.4.3 Social Cognitive Schema Among Members of a Geographically Dispersed Team Facilitate Emergent Learning, KM, and Innovation Mintzberg, Alstrand and Lampel (2009) combined emergent learning as adaptive and generative learning. Adaptive learning (Lampel, 1998) is regarding managing or coping, and often leads us to drive on indicators rather than sources of problems. Generative learning (Senge, 1990) is regarding creating and needs new ways of looking at the world, and needs understanding the structure that influence events. Organisations to become successful learning organisations should focus on generative learning (Senge, 1990). This study proposed a model integrating the factors facilitating OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team

7.4 Implications for Practice

259

members as illustrated in Fig. 4.1. This integrated model should assist employers and organisations in understanding the characteristics and mechanisms that enable OL, KM and innovation practices at individual and collective levels of interaction in an organisation operating in geographically dispersed environment.

7.4.3.1

Selecting the Right Team Players and Hierarchical Informal Work Structure

Findings of this study indicate that individuals and team members with diverse background are empowered during their job assignments and respect cultural differences and establish trust with geographically dispersed team members. Galbraith (1973) suggests that an informal hierarchy of interdependence by empowering organisational members facilitates the coordination of work among team members who occupy equivalent positions in the formal hierarchy. In this study, an empowered organisational member emerged as an empowered leader who managed tasks, making other colleagues understanding the vision in achieving organisational performance in distant sites, thus setting up dynamics in which all other members in the distant site needs to approach to figure out work priorities with shared understanding. An informal hierarchy can ensure learning, the flow of knowledge, and implement innovation processes in geographically dispersed teams with easy coordination links between team members at distant sites. Employers and organisations may consider recruiting diverse people with collaboration, technology readiness, adjusting work hours to work on various time zones for delivering high quality work on time. This study not only support the theory described by Galbraith (1973) but offers a way of understanding the contribution of diversity, hierarchical informal work structure to organisational learning, with different strengths of perception. This combines new niches within which diversity and work structure can emerge through opportunities for new interactions to form in the organisations. This emphasises the importance of making the work structure clear to the organisational members and encouraging team members to communicate directly with those with whom they share common understanding. This managerial suggestion suggests an opportunity for technology embedded in the work structure to support geographically dispersed collaboration. The data collected for this study suggest benefits from a hierarchical informal work structure. In the interviews conducted with the participants, it revealed that some team members found success by assigning members as liaisons or allowing liaisons to emerge within each site. These liaisons established social relationships and were responsible for linking geographically dispersed site coordination and communication; ensuring that all team members had the information they needed.

7.4.3.2

Seek, Give Feedback and Reward Performance

The findings indicate that team members seek and provide feedback with strong communication structure that supports social and work structures amongst members

260

7 Conclusion

working in geographically dispersed sites. Such a finding implies better organisational, innovative capability in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Thus, organisations may encourage employees to take risks or accept new opportunities through various incentives such as monetary rewards or public recognitions that lead to innovation and the development of new knowledge. Aside from employers and organisations, this research also carries implications for employees. Employees possess some control over their work environment. Through the demonstration of strong engagement with learning, development goals, and putting their skills into practice employees may be able to secure promotions for more complex roles, which in turn provide opportunities for further engagement. Individuals driven to engage in learning, development goals, and putting new skills into practice may take advantage of training programmes within the organisation or ask for assistance with challenging tasks. By contributing to other colleagues, coaching and collaborating with colleagues for learning, managing knowledge, and implementing innovation practices in geographically dispersed sites, employees become more engaged with learning, development goals, and carrying out best practices to enhance their career development.

7.4.4 Conclusions on Implications for Practice The findings of this study describe the factors that enable the interrelationship of OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. Understanding organisations with the alignment of factors established within innovation concepts surrounding the emergent themes leads to reflection on formal, informal, social and OL, KM and innovation practices in geographically dispersed individuals and team members. A fuller understanding is achieved upon exploring the features of the experience which have informed this discussion. The findings of this study emerge with recommendations for managers, employers, organisations and employees of geographically dispersed educational organisations and teams for work structures embracing technologies and OL, improved KM and innovation processes to support these geographically dispersed teams.

7.4.5 Meeting Calls for Research This research acted in response to calls for research across three bodies of literature. These calls addressed OL, KM, and innovation (Kanchana et al., 2011), the factors shaping their relationship between the individual and the collective (Kennedy, 2006, 2010), knowledge flows (Laihonen, 2006), knowledge sharing between the parties even in the absence of face-to-face contact between them (Casimir, Lee, & Loon, 2012, p. 741) and the radicalness of innovation (Firestone & McElroy, 2003; Sanz-Valle et al., 2011, p. 1008). The need for further research on what drives

7.4 Implications for Practice

261

and shapes OL, KM, and innovation in a dynamic environment with geographically dispersed control was met in this study. Calls have also been made for crossdisciplinary approaches (Heiskanen & Heiskanen, 2011; Kennedy, 2010; McElroy, 2000; Moustaghfir & Schiuma, 2013), and this study met these suggestions firmly. It provided analysis and discussion grounded in experience and linked through participants’ discussions of their explored experiences.

7.5 Limitations of This Study This study does not examine the diffusion of innovation effectiveness and the rate of innovation adoption in geographically dispersed sites. However, the novelty of this study discusses the implications and factors consisting of social, architectural and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members. This research is set in the private education institute with geographically dispersed individuals and team members. It lacks supporting and impeding external impacts of a broader private education institutes’ system. This book simply described the author’s construction of the organisation’s exploration in a largely geographically dispersed educational environment with agreed volunteering group of research participants. The practitioner experience of learning, KM, and innovation at this geographically dispersed educational organisation cannot be considered representative of other private education institutes operating in geographically dispersed environment outside of this setting. The limitations are acknowledged in this research.

7.5.1 Implications for Future Research Although this research offered many interesting insights into providing clearer perceptions into the factors enabling the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members’ experience, a number of important issues were exposed in its progress, which calls for further exploration. Given the inductive research approach, the findings from this book opened new paths. As advised by Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), it is suggested that the specific findings may serve as hypotheses for studies using deductive research methodologies to scientifically test the validity of the factors that enable the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation in a geographically dispersed individuals and team members. There are several recommendations for future research. They centre on the notion of organisations, their boundaries and geographically dispersed work environment, the validity of the broader application of innovation theory to organisations, and the efficacy of practice, which integrates learning, management of knowledge, and innovation. They are presented here as future research questions:

262

7 Conclusion

• How do the roles of interaction within a cognitive state determine a particular behaviour in learning, KM, and innovation processes and thus influence the task of innovation? • How does a change in the cognitive complexity of managers in a particular organisation influence the learning, knowledge management and change in creativity and innovation processes within that organisation? • How should the role of an agent within a geographically dispersed organisation act to stimulate the participants to share and create knowledge across boundaries? This research focuses on a PEI operating in geographically dispersed sites in areas that needed more understanding and an exploration of participants’ experiences among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. Thus, further research could be carried out to scientifically test the validity of these results.

7.6 Originality and Value The book addressed the aim of the research by putting forward a discussion of the factors encapsulating social, architectural and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation experiences that desired to inquire about a complete representation of experience in the organisation chosen for this study. This study claimed that collective relationships and networks of learning can create a common understanding using transferring activities and mechanisms for managing organisational knowledge and for practical implementation of new ideas between organisational members that is greater than what individual learning can generate. In this study, learning is defined as a social activity of individuals who selfestablish interaction between teams in geographically dispersed working environment influencing creativity. Knowledge is defined as social, active, and geographically dispersed which is recognised as emerging from a social activity and transferring activities between individuals and team members. Innovation is defined as a process for implementing practices, ideas, and skills that have been proven by experience to be valuable to individuals and team members in a geographically dispersed environment. This study clearly presented learning as their selection of others with whom to work in collaboration while traveling between different sites and working in colocated groups influencing creativity. KM is well defined as a process using knowledge sharing mechanisms and activities rather than an object and the focus is on practice for geographically dispersed organisational members’ interaction, understanding and implementing innovation in an educational organisation. The relationships between OL, KM, and innovation in geographically dispersed individuals and team members surrounding the discussion of the emergent themes shaped by the factors with significant reference to innovation theory are demonstrated in this

7.6 Originality and Value

263

book. The study’s empirical development and the application of a robust structured methodology reinforced the study’s theoretical integrity. The emergent themes link with innovation theories through which organisational experiences are discussed. The experiences of the participants reflected the properties and mechanisms of the social, architectural and cultural innovation concepts in several dimensions. Therefore, this study contributes to the emerging literature by pinpointing the factors that facilitate the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members. The integrated model in Fig. 4.1 emphasises the importance of factors, characteristics and mechanisms that facilitate learning at different levels of interaction, KM, and innovation processes among members of a geographically dispersed team working in an educational organisation. The model also depicts OL, geographically dispersed KM, and innovation processes embedding the emergent themes which apply a complete intermediating outcome on the factors that enable the relationship of OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members. This study showed the individuals’ and team members’ organisational learning, knowledge management, and innovation behaviours are shaped by the social, architectural, and cultural innovation characteristics and mechanisms. Individuals and team members engaged in social learning activities using transferring mechanisms by applying their cognitive schema that facilitated emergent learning, management of knowledge, and innovation practices. This study revealed that OL, KM, and innovation experiences among geographically dispersed individuals and team members are intimately entwined in their practice in a private education organisation in Singapore.

Appendix A

Related Research

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0

265

Research title

Knowledge Sharing in Schools. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Retrieved from http://repository.ntu.edu.sg/han dle/10356/1786

Developing a holistic perspective on learning and knowledge in a public sector organisation- An exploration of workplace experience Retrieved from (TROVEAustralia)

Workplace learning: implications for knowledge management initiatives. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Retrieved from http://repository.ntu.edu.sg/han dle/10356/1494

References

Meenakshi (2002)

Kennedy (2006)

Ramanathan (2006)

The objective of this study was therefore to determine if the assumption of previous learning, through formal education, training and experience, was a significant factor contributing to workplace performance in the Public Service Sector. Used quantitative research methodology

Knowledge management, learning organisation. Used qualitative methodology and groundedtheory

This study examined the knowledge sharing practices prevalent in schools. The key research questions inquired were the application of technology, the prevalence of knowledge sharing culture in schools

Relationship to this study

The context of study was in public service sector

Complexity Theory

The context of study is applicable to only primary and secondary schools under the ministry of education’s regime. The study used quantitative research

Dissimilarity to this research

(continued)

The relationships between previous learning and workplace standards and expectations in the modern work environment were addressed, specifically on whether what was previously learnt was applicable at work

Learning and knowledge to be ‘intimately entwined’ in the practice of organisational members Methodologies

Preferences with regard to KS practices, the problems faced during the process and the outcome of KS practice

Relevant finding

266 Appendix A: Related Research

Research title

A knowledge-based strategic theory framework for knowledge management: Knowledge Creation and Transfer in Businesses Retrieved from (TROVE—Australia)

A multidisciplinary approach to the reuse of open learning resources Retrieved from (TROVE—Australia)

Practitioner experience of a developing professional learning community Retrieved from (TROVE—Australia)

Enterprise, education and economic development Retrieved from (TROVE—Australia)

References

Duncan (2006)

Freschi (2008)

Coulson (2008)

O’Connor (2009)

(continued) A coherent and generally accepted working definition of knowledge for the organisational environment has not been established

Dissimilarity to this research

Theory-building research task

Professional learning community practices in public school in the context of Australia. Study used qualitative methodology and co-operative inquiry

Entrepreneurship Education—Australian context

Public school setting

The work contributes to simplifying It is an engineering thesis the complex process of moving with system implementation face-to-face education to an online scenario in a systematic and efficient way Knowledge sharing amongst educational institutes to reuse the learning resources

The literature is characterised as being in need of refinement before academics and practitioners can fully take advantage of the field The outcome is an integrated framework with which managers can understand and position KM concepts and initiative

Relationship to this study

(continued)

Three different methods of theory building were considered: case study, content analysis and discourse analysis

The study provided framework on enhancing teacher pedagogy

One major direction of future research is the investigation of reusability of Learning Designs. This will open new opportunities to universities and companies (staff training, certifications), seeking enhancing distance education and training

The literature is characterised as being in need of refinement before academics and practitioners can fully take advantage of the field

Relevant finding

Appendix A: Related Research 267

The relationship of instructional supervision and professional learning communities as Catalysts for authentic professional growth: a study of one school division Retrieved from (TROVE—Australia)

The construction of interculturality in the context of foreign language education: a case study of Japanese language learning in Australian primary Schools Retrieved from (TROVE—Australia)

Burant (2009)

Yuko Ramzan (2009)

This research investigated the construction of interculturality in the context of foreign language education in Australian primary schools. The study explored the curriculum areas of citizenship education and foreign language education within the Human Society

The study is significant as it enhances the work of teachers and the relevance of instructional supervision and professional learning communities to professional growth

The role of the registered nurse GroundedTheory in Nursing in Taiwanese Nursing Homes: A GroundedTheory Study Retrieved from (TROVE—Australia)

Lin (2008)

Relationship to this study

Research title

References

(continued)

Australian primary Schools Literature on globalisation, citizenship, language education and Interculturality was explored.

The study was in context of School division within Saskatchewan And the study was delimited in a context of a school system

Taiwanese Nursing Homes

Dissimilarity to this research

(continued)

GroundedTheory The methodology used for this study is a qualitative paradigm. The study is a case study with multiple contexts including two primary schools, a high school and a university. The methodology and analysis are framed by groundedtheory. The author’s position in conducting this study is underpinned by cultural theory

The study provided the criteria necessary within professional learning communities that could support effective instructional supervision as professional development activities utilized reflective practices in supporting professional growth

GroundedTheory and symbolic interactionism methodologies were selected to underpin this study

Relevant finding

268 Appendix A: Related Research

Interrelationships among knowledge management, organisationallearning and innovation

Differences in methodology Distributed organisation This study explores the factors enabling OL, KM an innovation establishing innovation concepts and surrounding discussions related to the emergent themes

(continued)

Relationships among knowledge management, organisationallearning and innovation

Characteristics of the teaching practices that have helped shape the educational beliefs and values that Chinese student sojourners bring to the online learning context in Australia

Interrelationships among knowledge management, organisationallearning and innovation. International Journal of Innovation andLearning9(2), 145–162

Relevant finding

Kanchana et al. (2011)

How students experience the teaching practices in the online environment at the university

The influence of knowledge Explore the effects Data which were collected Measure the relationship sharing on innovation. European of knowledge sharing on innovation from 246 middle and between knowledge sharing Business Review 22(3), 306–317 top-level managers in Turkey and innovation was explored by multiple regression analysis

Dissimilarity to this research

Rıfat Kama¸sak, Füsun, and Bulutlar, (2010)

The teaching practices in the online environment at the Australian University, including the pedagogical beliefs underpinning them. The research study calls for future study in affective dimension of learners’ experience and warrants attention in future research

Knowledge and knowers in online learning: investigating the effects of online flexible learning on student sojourners Retrieved from (TROVE—Australia)

Chen (2010)

Relationship to this study

Research title

References

(continued)

Appendix A: Related Research 269

Organisational factors to support Knowledge-based view of the firm knowledge management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management15(6), 890–914

Innovation as a knowledge-based outcome. Journal of Knowledge Management15(6), 928–947

Knowledge, learning, and innovation: Research and perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management 17(4), 495–510

Knowledge management in supporting collaborative innovation community capacity building. Journal of Knowledge Management 18(3), 574–590

Donate and Guadamillas (2011)

Quintane et al. (2011)

Moustaghfir and Schiuma (2013)

An et al. (2014)

Knowledge management in collaborative innovation

Literature Analysis

KM and innovation

Explore in a single model the relationships betweenorganisationallearning and competitive advantage with the interacting influence of knowledge management and innovation

Organisationallearning and competitive advantage: Testing for the interacting influence of knowledge management and innovation. International Journal of Innovation andLearning10(4), 376–401

Kamya et al. (2011)

Relationship to this study

Research title

References

(continued)

Factors that support KM and innovation

A cross-sectional survey design was carried out so as to generate data to test the research hypotheses

Relevant finding

Community capacity building (CICCB) in organisations

A comprehensive review of the related literature in collaborative innovation and knowledge management is conducted

Organisation competitiveness Literature Analysis

The study shows that Literature review on innovation innovation as an outcome has and characterize the different not been clearly defined from conceptualizations of innovation a knowledge perspective

Survey methodology was used and statistically tested in a sample of 111 Spanish companies

Empirically study in Uganda in the Sub-Saharan Africa

Dissimilarity to this research

270 Appendix A: Related Research

Appendix B

Node Structure: Pattern of Categorisation of Research Data (Sample Extract)

29/09/2014 10:28:10 AM Node Structure Pattern of categorisation of the research data—All nodes listing 29/09/2014 10:28:10 AM Hierarchical Name

Nickname Aggregate User Assigned Color

Node Nodes Nodes\\(1)

No

None

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\Self-organisation

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\Self-organisation\Support

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\Self-organisation\Support\nurturing

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\Self-organisation\Support\commitment

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\Self-organisation\trust

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\Self-organisation\passion

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\ Self-organisation\Passion\challenge

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\ Self-organisation\Passion\motivate

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\ Self-organisation\Protect

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\ Self-organisation\Protect\ownership

Yes

Green (continued)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0

271

272

Appendix B: Node Structure: Pattern of Categorisation of Research Data (Sample …

(continued) 29/09/2014 10:28:10 AM Node Structure Pattern of categorisation of the research data—All nodes listing 29/09/2014 10:28:10 AM Hierarchical Name

Nickname Aggregate User Assigned Color

Node Nodes Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\team work

Green

Green

Nodes\\(1)\Collective Relationships\commitment

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\ Collective Relationships\ commitment \change

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\ Collective Relationships\ commitment \effectiveness\outcomes

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\ Collective Relationships\ commitment \innovativeness

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\ Collective Relationships\ commitment \innovativeness\new idea itness\innovations\performance

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(1)\ Collective Relationships\ commitment \innovativeness\process

Yes

Green

Nodes\\(2)

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(2)\Collective Networks

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(2)\Collective Networks\centrality

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(2)\Collective Networks\valuing the people

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(2)\Collective Networks\setting the example

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(2)\Collective Networks\distance\knowledge seeking

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(2)\Collective Networks\distance\knowledge sharing

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(2)\Collective Networks\distance\learning\local

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(2)\Collective Networks\knowledge Seeking

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(2)\Collective Networks\Passionate about their job

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(2)\Collective Networks\valuing their job

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(3)

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(3)\Organisation Characteristics

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(3)\Organisation Characteristics\travel

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(3)\Organisation Characteristics\responsibility

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(3)\Organisation Characteristics\flexibility

Yes

Blue (continued)

Appendix B: Node Structure: Pattern of Categorisation of Research Data (Sample …

273

(continued) 29/09/2014 10:28:10 AM Node Structure Pattern of categorisation of the research data—All nodes listing 29/09/2014 10:28:10 AM Hierarchical Name

Nickname Aggregate User Assigned Color

Node Nodes Nodes\\(3)\Organisation Characteristics\resources

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(3)\Organisation Characteristics\real\lateral accountability

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(3)\Organisation Characteristics\real\control

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(3)\Organisation Characteristics\real\training

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(3)\Organisation Characteristics\real\direction

Yes

Blue

Reports\\Node Structure Report

Page 1 of 2

29/09/2014 10:28:10 AM

Hierarchical name

Nickname

Aggregate

User assigned Color

Nodes\\(3)\Organisation Characteristics\real\mentor

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(4)

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\connect

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\connect\leadership

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\connect\sharing

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\connect\happy

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\power

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\power\encourage

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\power\permission\allow

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\connect

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\direction

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\measurement

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\monitoring performance

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\control

Yes

Red (continued)

274

Appendix B: Node Structure: Pattern of Categorisation of Research Data (Sample …

(continued) Hierarchical name

Nickname

Aggregate

User assigned Color

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\community

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\structure\job designation

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\structure\resources

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(4)\Organisational Structure\structure\resources\tool

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(5)

Yes

Red

Nodes\\(5)\Tacit Values

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(5)\Tacit Values\skills

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(5)\Tacit Values\focus

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(5)\Tacit Values\responsibility

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(5)\Tacit Values\student

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(5)\Tacit Values\new staff

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(5)\Tacit Values\habits

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(5)\Tacit Values\feedback

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(5)\Tacit Values\values

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(5)\Tacit Values\mechanisms

Yes

Blue

Nodes\\(6)

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\Overt Values

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\Overt Values\diversity

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\Overt Values\ expectations

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\Overt Values\Skills

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\Overt Values\ innovations

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\Overt Values\staff development

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\Overt Values\leadership development

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\Overt Values\different practice

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\Overt Values\role model

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\Overt Values\experience

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\ Overt Values \give feedback

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\ Overt Values \accept feedback

Yes

Purple

Nodes\\(6)\ Overt Values \seek feedback

Yes

Purple

Reports\\Node Structure Report 29/09/2014 10:28:10 AM

Page 1 of 2

References

Ackroyd, S., & Hughes, J. A. (1992). Data collection in context. London: Longmans. Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurements: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21–47. Adams, G. L., & Lamont, B. T. (2003). Knowledge management systems and developing sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(2), 142–154. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production systems. Organisation Science, 10(1), 43–68. Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84, 98–107. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425–455. Akehurst, G., Rueda-Armengot, C., Lopez, S. V., & Marques, A. P. (2011). Ontological supports of knowledge: Knowledge creation and analytical knowledge. Management Decision, 49(2), 183–194. Al-Diban, S., & Ifenthaler, D. (2011). Comparison of two analysis approaches for measuring Externalized Mental Models. Educational Technology and Society, 14(2), 16–30. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge management systems: Issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the AIS, 1(7), 1–37. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136. Alavi, S. B., & McCormick, J. (2004). Cross-cultural analysis of the effectiveness of the learning organisation model in school contexts. The International Journal of Educational Management, 18(7), 408–416. Alguezaui, S., & Filieri, R. (2010). Innovation across tech-firm’s boundaries: A knowledge-based view. In F. Contractor, V. Kumar, T. Pedersen, & S. Kundu (Eds.), Outsourcing and offshoring of business activities: Determinants, implications and challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution: Expanding organisational intelligence. Newton, MA: Focal Press. Ali, I. & Warne, L. (2005). Knowledge management and social learning. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 1763-1769). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-553-5.ch310. Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M., & Holland, J. (2005). Empowerment in practice: From analysis to implementation. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Alvarenga Neto, R. C. D. (2007). Knowledge management in the Brazilian organisational context: A shift towards the concept of ‘ba’. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 143–152. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0

275

276

References

Amina, A., & Cohendent, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities, and communities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Amiot, C., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2006). Passion and psychological adjustment: A test of the person-environment fit hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 220–229. An, X., Deng, H., Chao, L., & Bai, W. (2014). Knowledge management in supporting collaborative innovation community capacity building. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(3), 574–590. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Angus, J., Patel, J. & Harty, J. (1998). ‘Knowledge management: Great concept … but what is it?’. InformationWeek. Retrieved 16 March 2014, from http://www.informationweek.com/673/ 73olkno.htm. Annina, C., Heinzen, M., & Boutellier, R. (2015). Designing workspaces for cross-functional knowledge-sharing in R&D: The ‘co-location pilot’ of Novartis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 236–256. Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2006). The relationship between individual and organisational learning: New evidence from managerial learning practices. Management Learning, 37(4), 455–473. Aramburu, N., Saénz, J., & Rivera, O. (2006). Fostering innovation and knowledge creation: The role of management context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 157–168. Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: Motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 541–554. Argote, L. (2005). Reflections on two views of managing learning and knowledge in organisations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), 43–48. Argote, L. (2012). Organisational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media. Argote, L., & Darr, E. (2000). Repositories of knowledge about productivity and timeliness in franchise organisations: Individual, structural and technological. In G. Dosi, R. Nelson, & S. Winter (Eds.), Nature and dynamics of organisational capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169. Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organisations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582. Argyris, C. (1992). On organisational learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organisational Learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Armour, H. O., & Teece, D. J. (1980). The Review of Economics and Statistics, 62(3), 470–474. Ashton, D., Green, F., Sung, J. & James, D. (2002). The evolution of education and training strategies in Singapore, Taiwan and S. Korea: A development model of skill formation. Journal of Education and Work 15(1), 5–30. Asoh, D. A. (2004). Business and knowledge strategies: Alignment and performance impact analysis (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University at Albany State University of New York, Albany, NY. Atkins, P., & Parker, S. (2012). Understanding individual compassion in organisations: The role of appraisals and psychological flexibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 524–546. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61–83. Augier, M., Shariq, S., & Vendelo, M. (2001). Understanding context: Its emergence, transformation and role in tacit knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 125–136.

References

277

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organisational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 25, 951–968. Backstrom, T. (2004). Collective learning: A way over the ridge to a new organisational attractor. The Learning Organisation, 11(6), 466–477. Baert, H., & Govaerts, N. (2012). Learning patterns of teams at the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(7/8), 538–550. Balestrin, A., Vargas, L. M., & Fayard, P. (2008). Knowledge creation in small-firm network. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 94–106. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barbaroux, P. (2012). Identifying collaborative innovation capabilities within knowledge-intensive environments: Insights from the ARPANET project. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(2), 232–258. Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323–1339. Barker, R. (2015). Management of knowledge creation and sharing to create virtual knowledgesharing communities: A tracking study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 334–350. Barki, H., Titah, R., & Boffo, C. (2007). Information system use-related activity: An expanded behavioral conceptualization of individual-level information system use. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 173–192. Barnes, B. R. & Morris, D. S. (2000). Revising quality awareness through internal marketing: An exploratory study among French and English medium-sized enterprise. Total Quality Management 11(4/5/6), 473–484. Barnett, H. G. (1953). Innovation: the basis of cultural change. Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organisational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 15–36. Baskerville, R., & Dulipovici, A. (2006). The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 4, 83–105. Bates, R. A., & Khasawneh, S. (2005). Organisational learning culture, learning transfer climate and perceived innovation in Jordanian organisations. International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2), 96–109. Baum, F. (2000). The new public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage Publications. Becker, S., & Whisler, T. (1967). The innovative organisation: A selective view of current theory and research. The Journal of Business, 40(4), 462–469. Belkahla Hakimi, W., Triki, A., & Mjahed Hammami, S. (2014). Developing a customer knowledgebased measure for innovation management. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(3), 349–374. Belussi, F., Sammarra, A., & Sedina, S. R. (2010). Learning at the boundaries in an ‘Open Regional Innovation System’: A focus on firms’ innovation strategies in the Emilia Romagna life science industry. Research Policy, 39(6), 710–721. Bennet, A., & Bennet, D. (2004). Organisational survival in the new world: The intelligent complex adaptive system. A new theory of the firm. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science. Bennett, R. (2001). ‘Ba’ as a determinant of salesforce effectiveness: An empirical assessment of the applicability of the Nonaka-Takeuchi model to the management of the selling function. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 19(3), 188–199. Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. G. (2002). Crucibles of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 39–46. Berkes, F. (2009). Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 151–156.

278

References

Bertels, T., & Savage, C. M. (1998). Tough questions on knowledge management. In G. Von Krogh, J. Roos, & D. Kleine (Eds.), Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing and measuring knowledge (pp. 7–25). London: Sage Publications. Blaikie, N. W. H. (2000). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. Cambridge: Polity. Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Organisational knowledge management: A contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 23–55. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education; Open University Press. Beckett, D., & Hager, P. (2000). Making judgments as the basis for workplace learning: Towards an epistemology of practice. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 19(4), 300–311. Bel, R. (2010). Leadership and innovation: Learning from the best. Wiley InterScience. https://doi. org/10.1002/joe.20308. Berglund, L., & Andersson, P. (2012). Recognition of knowledge and skills at work: In whose interests? Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(2), 73–84. Bhatt, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in organisations: Examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 68–75. Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organisational learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 13(6), 595–618. Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes of four types of employee development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 845–857. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G. K., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825–845. Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organisations: An overview and interpretations. Organisation Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046. Blomme, R. J., & Bornebroek-Te Lintelo, K. (2012). Existentialism and organisational behaviour: How existentialism can contribute to complexity theory and sense-making. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 25(3), 405–421. Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105. Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 18, 3–10. Bohn, R. E. (1994). Measuring and managing technological knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 36(1), 61–73. Boisot, M. (1995). Is your firm a creative destroyer? Competitive learning and knowledge flows in the technological strategies of firms. Research Policy, 24, 489–506. Boisot, M. (1998). Knowledge asset: Securing a competitive advantage in the information economy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Boland, R. J., Jr., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organisation Science, 6(4), 350–372. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organisations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bollinger, A. S., & Smith, R. D. (2001). Managing organisational knowledge as a strategic asset. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 1–8. Bontis, N., & Serenko, A. (2009a). A causal model of human capital antecedents and consequents in the financial services industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 53–69. Bontis, N. & Serenko, A. (2009b). Longitudinal knowledge strategizing in a long-term healthcare organisation. International Journal of Technology Management 47(1/2/3), 276–297. Bonifacio, M., Bouquet, P. & Traverso, P. (2002). Enabling distributed knowledge management: Managerial and technological implications. Novatica and Informatik/Informatique, 3(1). Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc. (1982). New product management for the 1980s. Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc. Bosch-Sijtsema, P. M., Ruohomäki, V., & Vartiainen, M. (2009). Knowledge work productivity in distributed teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6), 533–546.

References

279

Bottrup, P. (2005). Learning in a network: A ‘third way’ between school learning and workplace learning? Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(8), 505–508. Boud, D. (2003). ‘I don’t think I am a learner’: Acts of naming learners at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 326–331. Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 12–23. Bozdogan, K., Deyst, J., Hoult, D., & Lucas, M. (1998). Architectural innovation in product development through early supplier integration. R&D Management, 28(3), 163–173. Brachos, D., Konstantinos, K., Klas, E., & Soderquist, G. P. (2007). Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), 31–44. Bragg, A. B. (2009). Reframing practice: Creating social learning networks. Development and Learning Organisations, 23(4), 16–20. Bramley, P. (2003). Evaluating training (2nd ed.). London: CIPD. Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1996). Intergroup relations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organisational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organisation Science, 2(1), 40–57. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90–111. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Knowledge and organisation: A social-practice perspective. Organisation Science, 12(2), 198–213. Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343–378. Bryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), 25. Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007). The nature of quantitative research. In Business Research Methods. New York, NY. Oxford University Press. Buchel, B. & Probst, G. (2002). From organisational learning to knowledge management. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.132.3507&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Buchel, B., Nieminen, L., Armbruster-Domeyer, H., & Denison, D. (2013). Managing stakeholders in team based innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 22–49. Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263–296. Burant, S. E. (2009). The relationship of instructional supervision and professional learning communities as catalysts for authentic professional growth: A study of one school division (Doctoral dissertation). Burt, R. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organisational behaviour (pp. 345–423). London and New York, NY: Elsevier Science JAI. Burtscher, M. J., Kolbe, M., Wacker, J., & Manser, T. (2011). Interactions of team mental models and monitoring behaviors predict team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(3), 257–269. Bushe, G. R. (2009a). Clear leadership (Rev Ed): Sustaining real collaboration and partnership at work. Boston, MA: Davies-Black. Bushe, G. R. (2009b). Learning from collective experience: A different view of organisational learning. Organisation Development Practitioner, 41(3), 19–23. Butler-Kisber, L. (2010). Qualitative inquiry: Thematic, narrative and arts-informed perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bysted, R. (2013). Innovative employee behaviour: The moderating effects of mental involvement and job satisfaction on contextual variables. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(3), 268–284. Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515–524.

280

References

Cameron, P. D. (2002). Managing knowledge assets: The cure for an ailing structure. CMA Management, 76(3), 20–23. Campbell, T. T., & Armstrong, S. J. (2013). A longitudinal study of individual and organisational learning. The Learning Organisation, 20(3), 240–258. Cardinal, L. B., Allessandri, T. M., & Turner, S. F. (2001). Knowledge codifiability, resources, and science based innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 195–204. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organisation Science, 15(5), 555–568. Carlsson, S. A. (2001). Knowledge management in network contexts. In 9th European Conference on Information Systems. Bled, Slovenia. Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 740–753. Caulley, D. (1994). Notes on the basic characteristics of postpositivistic interpretive inquiry. In B. Neville, P. Willis, & M. Edwards (Eds.), Qualitative research in adult education (pp. 3–20). Adelaide: Centre for Research in Education and Work, University of South Australia. Cavusgil, S. T., Calantone, R. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation capability. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 18(1), 6–21. Chang, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Yen, C.-H. (2012). Factors affecting knowledge management success: The fit perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6), 847–861. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications. Chatti, M. A. (2012). Knowledge management: A personal knowledge network perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 829–844. Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Jarke, M. (2012). LaaN: Convergence of knowledge management and technology-enhanced learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5(2), 177–189. Chen, R. T. H. (2010). Knowledge and knowers in online learning: Investigating the effects of online flexible learning on student sojourners. Chen, C. J., & Huang, J.-W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance: The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 104–114. Chen, Y. S., Lin, M. J. J., & Chang, C. H. (2009). The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(2), 152–158. Chen, Y.-Y., Yeh, S.-P., & Huang, H.-L. (2012). Does knowledge management ‘fit’ matter to business performance? Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 671–687. Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (Eds.). (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organisations. From the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organisations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chiva, R., Grandío, A., & Alegre, J. (2010). Adaptive and generative learning: Implications from complexity theories. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(2), 114–129. Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2002). Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge creation process. Expert Systems with Applications, 23(3), 173–187. Choo, C. W., & Alvarenga Neto, R. C. D. (2010). Beyond the ba: Managing enabling contexts in knowledge organisations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(4), 592–610. Choo, C. W., & Johnston, R. (2004). Innovation in the knowing organisation: A case study of an e-commerce initiative. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 77–92. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

References

281

Clarke, J., & Turner, P. (2004). Global competition and the Australian biotechnology industry: Developing a model of SMEs knowledge management strategies. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(1), 38–46. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T. (2008). Managing and organisations: An introduction to theory and practice. London: Sage Publications. Clippinger, J., III (Ed.). (1999). The biology of business: Decoding the natural laws of enterprise. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Clough, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2002). A student’s guide to methodology. London: Sage Publications. Cohen, M. D., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., Warglien, M., et al. (1995). Routines and other recurring action patterns of organisations: Contemporary research issues. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(3), 653–698. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. London: Routledge. Cohen, M. D., & Sproul, L. E. (1991). Editors’ introduction. Organisation. Science, 2(1), 1–3. Colley, H. (2012). Not learning in the workplace: Austerity and the shattering of illusio in public service work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(1), 1–19. Collins, (2001). Collins concise dictionary. Glasgow: Harper Collins. Connell, J., Kriz, A., & Thorpe, M. (2014). Industry clusters: An antidote for knowledge sharing and collaborative innovation? Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 137–151. Consoli, D., & Elche-Hortelano, D. (2010). Variety in the knowledge base of Knowledge Intensive Business Services. Research Policy, 39(10), 1303–1310. Cooke, S., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organisational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2, 373–390. Coopey, J., Keegan, O., & Emler, N. (1997). Managers’ innovations as ‘sensemaking’. British Journal of Management, 8, 301–315. Cooper, R. G. (1984). New product strategies: What distinguishes the top performers? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2, 151–164. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work Attitudes. Sage Publications. Coulson, S. A. (2008). Practitioner experience of a developing professional learning community. Council for Private Education (CPE). (2020). Council for Private Education: Resources for private education institutions. Retrieved from https://www.ssg.gov.sg/cpe/for-peis/resources.html. Cowan, R., Sanditov, B., & Weehuizen, R. (2011). Productivity effects of innovation, stress and social relations. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, 79(3), 165–182. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2007). Intercultural interaction in distributed teams: Salience of and adaptations to cultural differences. Philadelphia, PA: Academy of Management. Creplet, F. (2000). The concept of ‘ba’: A new path in the study of knowledge in firms. European Journal of Economic and Social Systems, 14(4), 365–379. Creswell, J. W. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organisational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191. Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Leveraging knowledge through leadership of organisational learning. In C. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), Strategic management of intellectual capital and

282

References

organisational knowledge: A collection of readings (pp. 711–723). New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress. Crossan, M., Lane, H., & White, R. (1999). An organisational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–538. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L. (1995). Organisational learning: Dimensions for a theory. The International Journal of Organisational Analysis, 3(4), 337–360. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E. & Rush, J. C. (1994). Learning within organisation (Working Paper No. 94-06). Ontario: University of Western Ontario Richard Ivey School of Business. Crossman, A., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2004). Trust, commitment and team working: The paradox of virtual organisations. Global Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 4(4), 375–390. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social science research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. New South Wales: Allen & Uwin. Crowne, K. A. (2009). Enhancing knowledge transfer during and after international assignments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 134–147. Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B. S. (2006). The keys to successful knowledge-sharing. Journal of General Management, 31(4), 1–18. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. D’Amato, A., & Roome, N. (2009). Toward an integrated model of leadership for corporate responsibility and sustainable development: A process model of corporate responsibility beyond management innovation. Corporate Governance, 9(4), 421–434. Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organisational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 193–210. Dai, Z. (2012). Toward a learning-based view of innovation. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 22(1), 18–27. Dai, W., Chen, M., & Ye, N. (2011). Research on the innovation system of China’s software industry based on CAS theory. Kybernetes, 40(5/6), 807–813. Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Butterworth Heinemann. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organisational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590. Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 101–115. Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organisations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T., Prusak, L. & Strong, B. (2008). Putting ideas to work. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/businessinsight/articles/2008/1/5011/. Davison, G., & Blackman, D. (2005). The role of mental models in innovative teams. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(4), 409–423. Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organisations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52. De Laat, M. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2002). Collective learning: Theoretical perspectives and ways to support networked learning. European Journal for Vocational Training, 27(3), 13–24. De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dealtry, R. (2006). The corporate university’s role in managing an epoch in learning organisation innovation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(5), 313–320. Dean, A., & Kretschmer, M. (2007). Can ideas be capital? Factors of production in the postindustrial economy: A review and critique. Academy of Management Review, 32, 573–594.

References

283

DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53. Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding knowledge management. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 374– 384. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Deschamps, J.-P. (2005). Different leadership skills for different innovation strategies. Strategy and Leadership, 33(5), 31–38. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. In Great books of the Western World (Vol. 55). Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Diaz-Diaz, N. L., Aguiar-Díaz, I., & De Saá-Pérez, P. (2008). The effect of technological knowledge assets on performance: The innovative choice in Spanish firms. Research Policy, 37(9), 1515– 1529. Dick, B. (2005). Grounded theory: A thumbnail sketch [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.scu. edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html. Dickerson, V. C. & Zimmerman, J. L. (1996). Myths, misconceptions, and a word or two about politics. (Special edition on narrative). In J. L. Zimmerman & V. C. Dickerson (Eds.), Journal of Systemic Therapies. Dickson, P. R., Farris, P. W., & Verbeke, J. M. I. (2001). Dynamic strategic thinking. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 29(3), 216–237. Dixon, N. (1994). The organisational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively. London: McGraw-Hill Company. Dixon, N. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Dobni, C. B. (2010). The relationship between an innovation orientation and competitive strategy. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 331–357. Dodgson, M. (1993). Organisational learning: A review of some literatures. Organisation Studies, 14, 375–394. Doloreux, D., & Lord-Tarte, E. (2013). The organisation of innovation in the wine industry. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(2), 171–189. Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2011). Organisational factors to support knowledge management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 890–914. Dougherty, D., & Dunne, D. D. (2011). Organizing ecologies of complex innovation. Organisation Science, 22(5), 1214–1223. Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organisations: Overcoming innovation-to-organisation problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1120– 1153. Doyle, C. P., Kinicki, A. J., & Keats, B. W. (1994). Integrating organisational and individual information-processing perspectives on choice. Organisational Science, 5(3), 294–308. Drejer, A. (2000). Organisational learning and competence development. The Learning Organisation, 7, 206–220. Duncan, G. W. (2006). A knowledge-based strategic theory framework for knowledge management: knowledge creation and transfer in businesses (Doctoral dissertation). Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20–29. Duffy, J. (1999). Harvesting experience: Reaping the benefits of knowledge. Prairie Village, KS: ARMA International.

284

References

Duncan, R., & Weiss, A. (1979). Organisational learning: Implications for organisational design. Research in Organisation Behavior, 1, 75–123. Dyer, J., & Nobeoka, I. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345–367. Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 215–233. Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organisational learning: Contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50, 1085–1113. Easterby-Smith, M., Antonacopolou, E., Simm, D., & Lyles, M. A. (2004). Constructing contributions to organisational learning: Argyris and the next generation. Management Learning, 35, 371–380. Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organisational learning: Debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 783–796. Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2008). Inter-organisational knowledge transfer: Current issues and future prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 661–674. Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R., & Gherardi, S. (1998). Organisational learning: Diverging communities of practice. Management Learning, 29, 259–272. Ebrahim, N. A., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual R&D teams in small and medium enterprises: A literature review. Scientific Research and Essays, 4(13), 1575–1590. Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1998). From organisational learning to the learning organisation. Management Learning, 29, 5–20. Edmonson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 123–138. Edson, M. C. (2012). A complex adaptive systems view of resilience in a project team. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(5), 499–516. Education Statistics Singapore [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/ yos11/statsT-education.pdf. Edwards, J. S., Shaw, D., & Collier, P. M. (2005). Knowledge management systems: Finding a way with technology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 113. Van Eijnatten, F. M. (2004). Chaordic systems thinking: Some suggestions for a complexity framework to inform a learning organisation. The Learning Organisation, 11(6), 430–449. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. Eisenhardt, M., & Santos, F. M. (2002). Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy? In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of Strategy and Management (pp. 139–164). London: Sage Publications. Ellinger, A. D., & Cseh, M. (2007). Contextual factors influencing the facilitation of others’ learning through everyday work experiences. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(7), 435–452. Elsey, B., & Leung, S. K. J. (2004). Changing the work behaviour of Chinese employees using organisational learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(3/4), 167–177. Ellsworth, J. B. (1995). Planning for success: Considerations for managing the dissemination of training technology. In M. Simonson & M. Anderson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1995 Annual National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 136–146). Anaheim, CA: ERIC Document. Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. London: Falmer. Emelo, R. (2010). Increasing productivity with social learning. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(4), 203–210.

References

285

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organisational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21–32. Eraut, M. (2011). How researching learning at work can lead to tools for enhancing learning. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning (pp. 181–197). London: Sage Publications. Eraut, M., Alderton, J., Cole, G. & Senker, P. (1998). Development of knowledge and skills in employment (Research Report No. 5). Brighton: University of Sussex Institute of Education. ESD-Education Statistics Digest. (2019). [Online] Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/educat ion/education-statistics-digest/files/esd-2011.pdf. Espinosa, A., & Porter, T. (2011). Sustainability, complexity and learning: Insights from complex systems approaches. The Learning Organisation, 18(1), 54–72. Evans, J. M., & Baker, R. G. (2012). Shared mental models of integrated care: Aligning multiple stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Health Organisation and Management, 26(6), 713–736. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Feldman, M. S. (1989). Order without design: Information production and policy making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Feldman, M., & Martin, R. (2005). Constructing jurisdictional advantage. Research Policy, 34, 1235–1249. Fenwick, T. (2006). Tidying the territory: Questioning terms and purposes in work-learning research. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(5), 265–278. Field, L. (1997). Impediments to empowerment and learning within organisations. The Learning Organisation, 4(4), 149–158. Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. (1985). Organisational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813. Firestone, J. M., & McElroy, M. W. (2003). Key issues in the new knowledge management. Burlington, MA: KMCI Press/Butterworth Heinemann. Fischer, K. W., Shaver, P. R., & Carnochan, P. (1990). How emotions develop and how they organize development. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 81–127. Fisser, S., & Browaeys, M.-J. (2010). Team learning on the edge of chaos. The Learning Organisation, 17(1), 58. Floyd, S., & Wooldridge, B. (2000). Building strategy from the middle: Reconceptualizing strategy process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Foo, C. T., & McKiernan, P. (2007). Molecular, structural firm adaptations to environments: Empirical Tao of the CEO. Chinese Management Studies, 1(1), 6–24. Foss, L., Woll, K., & Moilanen, M. (2013). Creativity and implementations of new ideas: Do organisational structure, work environment and gender matter? International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 298–322. Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 208–226). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1984). Des espace autres. Retrieved from http://foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/ foucault.heteroTopia.en.html. Fox, G. L., Jeffery, S., Smith, J., Cronin, J., Jr., & Brusco, M. (2013). Weaving webs of innovation. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 33(1), 5–24. Fransilla, H., Okkonen, J., Savolainen, R., & Talja, S. (2012). The formation of coordinative knowledge practices in distributed work: Towards an explanatory model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(4), 650–665. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 15–39. Freschi, S. (2008). A multidisciplinary approach to the reuse of open learning resources (Master’s thesis, University of Sydney). Friedman, V. J. (2001). The individual as agent of organisational learning. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of Organisational Learning and Knowledge (pp. 398–414). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

286

References

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–20. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2011). Workplace learning and the organisation. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), The Sage handbook of workplace learning (pp. 46–59). London: Sage Publications. Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 123–136. Gadrey, J., Gallouj, F., & Weinstein, O. (1995). New modes of innovation: How services benefit industry. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6, 4–16. Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organisations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Galende, J. (2006). Analysis of technological innovation from business economics and management. Technovation, 26, 300–311. Galunic, C., & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombination in the firm: Knowledge, structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1193–1201. Garcia-Morales, V. J., Llorens-Montes, F. J., & Verdu-Jover, A. J. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of organisational innovation and organisational learning in entrepreneurship. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 106(1), 21–42. Garratt, B. (1999). The learning organisation 15 years on: Some personal reflections. The Learning Organisation, 6(5), 202–206. Garvin, D. (1993). Building a learning organisation. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78–91. Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organisation to work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. George, G., Kotha, R., & Zheng, Y. (2008). Entry into insular domains: A longitudinal study of knowledge structuration and innovation in biotechnology firms. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1448–1474. Gharaibeh, H. (2012). Project team learning: The mystery revealed. Journal of Organisational Learning and Leadership, 10(2), 1–15. Gherardi, S. (2006). Organisational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Gherardi, S. (2012). How to conduct a practice-based study: Problems and methods. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Gilbert, D. H. (2012). From chalk and talk to walking the walk: Facilitating dynamic learning contexts for entrepreneurship students in fast-tracking innovations. Education and Training, 54(2), 152–166. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction Publishers. Glick, M. B., Chermack, T. J., Luckel, H., & Gauck, B. Q. (2012). Effects of scenario planning on participant mental models. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(5), 488–507. Gloet, M., & Terziovski, M. (2004). Exploring the relationship between knowledge management practices and innovation performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(5), 402–409. Gold, J., Thorpe, R., & Mumford, A. (2010a). Leadership and Management Development (5th ed.). London: CIPD. Gold, J., Holden, R., Griggs, V., & Kyriakidou, N. (2010b). Workplace learning and knowledge management. In J. Gold, R. Holden, P. Iles, J. Stewart, & J. Beardwell (Eds.), Human Resource Development (pp. 193–215). London: Palgrave.

References

287

Gorelick, C., Milton, N., & April, K. (Eds.). (2004). Performance through learning: Knowledge management in practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Gottschalk, P. (2005). Strategic knowledge management technology. Hershey, PA: Idea GroupPublishing. Govindarajan, R. & Trimble, C. (2006). Achieving breakthrough growth: From idea to execution. Ivey Business Journal 1–7. Goyal, A., & Akhilesh, K. B. (2007). Interplay among innovativeness, cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence and social capital of work teams. Team Performance Management, 13(7/8), 206–226. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (1995). Behavior in organisations (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Suddaby, R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–81. Griffith, C., Larkin, M., Cierpial, C., Gettings, E. & Capasso, V. (2007). How to create an innovative journal club—And keep it going. American Nurse Today 2(11). Griffis, S. E., Goldsby, T. J., Cooper, M., & Closs, D. J. (2007). Aligning logistics performance measures to the information needs of the firm. Journal of Business Logistic, 28(2), 35–53. Grinsven, M. V., & Visser, M. (2011). Empowerment, knowledge conversion and dimensions of organisational learning. The Learning Organisation, 18(5), 378–391. Gruenfeld, D., Martorana, P. V., & Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their worldliest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 60–74. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–91. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Guechtouli, W., Rouchier, J., & Orillard, M. (2013). Structuring knowledge transfer from experts to newcomers. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 47–68. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496. Hackman, J. R. (2004). Leading teams. Team Performance Management, 10(3/4), 84–88. Hakansson, H., & Ford, D. (2002). How should companies interact in business networks?’. Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 133–139. Halinen, A., Salmi, A., & Havila, V. (1999). From dydic change to changing business networks: An analiytical framework. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 779–794. Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(Summer), 83–103. Hansen, R. E. (1995). Teacher socialization in technological education. Journal of Technology Education, 6(2), 34–45. Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organisation Science, 13(3), 232–248. Hardwick, J., Anderson, A. R., & Cruickshank, D. (2013). Trust formation processes in innovative collaborations: Networking as knowledge building practices. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 4–21. Hargadon, A. & Sutton, R. I. (2000). Building an innovation factory. Harvard Business Review, 157–166. Hartmann, A. (2006). The role of organisational culture in motivating innovative behaviour in construction firms. Construction Innovation, 6(3), 159–172. Haslam, A. (2004). Psychology in organisations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

288

References

Hatch, J. (2010). Defining organisational knowledge: Turning individual knowledge into organisational intellectual capital. Retrieved from http://knol.google.com/k/definingorganisational-kno wledge. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organisation theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hautala, J. (2011). International academic knowledge creation and ba: A case study from Finland. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 9, 4–16. Havelock, R. (1969). Planning for innovation: A comparative study of the literature on the dissemination and utilization of scientific knowledge. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Healy-Tangney, V. (2013). Changing a company’s DNA to inspire teamwork. MIT Sloan School of Management. Retrieved 30 January, 2015. Heath, H., & Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory approach: A comparison of Glaser and Strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41, 141–150. Heiskanen, T., & Heiskanen, H. (2011). Spaces of innovation: Experiences from two small high-tech firms. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(2), 97–116. Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge management—Comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 4–31. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods. London: Sage Publications. Hernandez-Espallardo, M., Molina-Castillo, F.-J., & Rodriguez-Orejuela, A. (2012). Learning processes, their impact on innovation performance and the moderating role of radicalness. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1), 77–98. Hernes, T. (2004). The spatial construction of organisation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organisational behavior: Utilizing human resources. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Heusinkveld, S. (2013). Management consultancies: knowledge based innovation at work. London: Routledge. Ho, L. A. (2011). Meditation, learning, organisational innovation and performance. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 111(1), 113–131. Hildreth, P. (2000). Communities of practice in the distributed international environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 27–38. Hillebrand, B., & Biemans, W. G. (2003). The relationship between internal and external cooperation: Literature review and propositions. Journal of Business Research, 56, 735–743. Hinds, P., & Bailey, D. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organisation Science, 14, 615–632. Hoeve, A., & Nieuwenhuis, L. F. M. (2006). Learning routines in innovation processes. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(3), 171–185. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hoffman, E., & Roman, P. M. (1984). The effect of organisational emphases upon the diffusion of information about innovations. Journal of Management, 10, 277–291. Holland, J. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploration and exploitation within and between organisations: An empirical study of product development. Organisation Science, 15, 70–81. Homburg, C., Jensen, O. & Krohmer, H. (2008). Configurations of marketing and sales: A taxonomy. Journal of Marketing 72(2), 133. Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Author, 19(4), 2–9. Howell, W. J. (1966). Job pride. Personnel Journal, 45(10), 607–609.

References

289

Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169. Huang, X., Iun, J., & Liu, A. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 31(1), 122–143. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organisational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organisation Science, 2(1), 88–115. Huber, G. P. (1998). Synergies between organisational learning, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7(1), 3–8. Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9. Hunter, K., Hari, S., Egbu, C., & Kelly, J. (2005). Grounded theory: Its diversification and application through two examples from research studies on knowledge and value management. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methodology, 3(1), 57–68. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Illia, L. (2010). How business disciplines discuss multiple identities in organisations. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(4), 327–344. Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50(1), 49–59. Irvine, W., & Anderson, A. R. (2008). ICT peripherality and smaller hospitality businesses in Scotland. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 4(14), 200–218. Ishimatsu, H., Sugasawa, Y., & Sakurai, K. (2004). Understanding innovation as a complex adaptive system: Case studies from Shimadzu and NEC. Pacific Economic Review, 9(4), 371–376. Ittoo, A., & van den Bosch, A. (2016). Text analytics in industry: Challenges, desiderata and trends. Computers in Industry, 78, 96–107. Jackson, S. E., Chuang, C-H., Harden, E. E., Jiang, Y. & Joseph, J. M. (2006). Toward developing human resource management systems for knowledge-intensive teamwork. In J. M. Joseph (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 25, pp. 27–70). Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Vintage. Jacobs, R. L. (2002). Institutionalizing organisational change through cascade training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26, 177–182. Jacobs, H. (2013). Co-innovation through multiple social identity processes: The story of a South African co-op owned Business. European Business Review, 25(1), 42–64. Jacobs, R. L., & Park, R. (2009). A proposed conceptual framework of workplace learning: Implications for theory development and research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 8(2), 133–150. Jakubik, M. (2011). Becoming to know: Shifting the knowledge creation paradigm. Information and Knowledge Management, 15(3), 374–402. Janicot, C., & Mignon, S. (2012). Knowledge codification in audit and consulting firms: A conceptual and empirical approach. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 10, 4–15. Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organisational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661–1674. Jarvi, T. (2012). Teaching entrepreneurship in vocational education from the regional field perspective. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 64(3), 365–377. Jashapara, A. (2010). Knowledge management: An integrated approach. London: Pearson Education. Jassawalla, A. R., & Hemant, S. (2002). Cultures that support product-innovation process. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 1–14. Jensen, J. A., & Rasmussen, O. E. (2004). An inquiry into the foundations of organisational learning and the learning organisation. The Learning Organisation, 11(6), 478–490.

290

References

Jerez-Gomez, P., Cespedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organisational learning capability: A proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 715–725. Johannessen, J. A. (2013). Innovation: A systemic perspective—Developing a systemic innovation theory. Kybernetes, 42(8), 1195–1217. Johannessen, J. A., & Olsen, B. (2009). Systemic knowledge processes, innovation and sustainable competitive advantages. Kybernetes, 38(3/4), 559–580. Johanessen, J. A., Olsen, B., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2001). Innovation as newness: What is new, how new, and new to whom. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4, 20–31. Johannessen, J. A., Olsen, B., & Olaisen, J. (2005). Intellectual capital as a holistic management philosophy: A theoretical perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 25(2), 151–171. Johannessen, J. A., & Skaalsvik, H. (2015). The development of innovations in organisations: The role of creative energy fields. Kybernetes, 44(1), 89–106. Johnson, J. D. (2001). Success in innovation implementation. Journal of Communication Management, 5(4), 341–359. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnsson, S. (2008). Performance and performance measurements in complex product development (Licentiate thesis). School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University, Västerås. Johnsson, M. C., & Hager, P. (2008). Navigating the wilderness of becoming professional. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(7/8), 526–536. Jonassen, D. & Land, S. (Eds.). (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Routledge. Jones, B. C., Sambrook, S., & Irvine, F. (2011). Empowerment and being valued: A phenomenological study of nursing students’ experiences of clinical practice. Nurse Education Today, 31(4), 368–372. Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2014). How to make distance work work. Interactions, 21(2), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/2567788. Kallio, K., & Lappalainen, I. (2015). Organisational learning in an innovation network: Enhancing the agency of public service organisations. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 25(2), 140– 161. Kama¸sak, R., & Bulutlar, F. (2010). The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation. European Business Review. Kamya, M. T., Ntayi, J. M., & Ahiauzu, A. (2011). Organisational learning and competitive advantage: Testing for the interacting influence of knowledge management and innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 10(4), 376–401. Kanchana, R., Law, K. M., Comepa, N., Malithong, P., & Phusavat, K. (2011). Interrelationships among knowledge management, organisational learning and innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 9(2), 145–162. Kankanhalli, A., Tanudidjaja, F., Sutanto, J., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2003). The role of IT in successful knowledge management initiatives. Communications of the ACM, 46(9), 69–73. Karakaya, F., & Yannopoulos, P. (2008). Defensive strategy framework in global markets: A mental models approach. European Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 1077–1100. Karim, N. H. A. (2010). The impact of work related variables on librarians’ organisational commitment and job satisfaction. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 15, 149–163. Katzenbach, J. R. (2003). Why pride matters more than money: The power of the world’s greatest motivational force (1st ed.). Crown Business. Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organisation and selection in evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kay, J. (1993). Foundations of corporate success. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ke, W. L., & Wei, K. K. (2006). Organisational learning process: Its antecedents and consequences in enterprise system implementation. Journal of Global Information Management, 14(1), 1–22.

References

291

Kennedy, T. M. (2006). Developing a holistic perspective on learning and knowledge in a public sector organisation—An exploration of workplace experience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Canberra, Canberra. Kennedy, T. M. (2010). Workplace learning and organisational knowledge in the public sector: An exploration of workplace experience. Saarbrucken: VDM Publishing. Kerosuo, H. (2006). Boundaries in action: An activity-theoretical study of development, learning and change in health care for patients with multiple and chronic illnesses. Helsinki: Department of Education, University of Helsinki. Kessler, E. H. (2001). The idols of organisational theory from Francis Bacon to the Dilbert principle. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(4), 285–297. Khalifa, M., & Liu, V. (2003). Determinants of successful knowledge management programs. Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, 1(2), 103–112. Khalifa, M., Lam, R. & Lee, M. (2001). An integrative framework for knowledge management effectiveness. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 135–144). New Orleans, LA. Khan, Z., & Vorley, T. (2017). Big data text analytics: An enabler of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management. Kickul, J., Griffiths, M., & Bacq, S. (2010). The boundary-less classroom: Extending social innovation and impact learning to the field. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4), 652–663. Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 57–80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organisational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37–50. Kim, Y. Y. (1995). Cross-cultural adaption: An integrative theory. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 170–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kimble, G. A. (1961). Hilgard and Marquis’ conditioning and learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Appletoncentury-Crofts. Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Held, C. (2010). The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: Technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 8(1), 33–44. Kissi, J., Dainty, A., & Liu, A. (2012). Examining middle managers’ influence on innovation in construction professional services firms. Construction Innovation, 12(1), 11–28. Knapp, E. M. (1998). Knowledge management. Business and Economic Review, 44(4), 3–6. Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: A fad, a brand, an innovation? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3), 221–240. Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: An empirically derived model of learning by groups of organisations. Human Relations, 58, 369–392. Knockaert, M., Spithoven, A., & Clarysse, B. (2010). The knowledge paradox explored: What is impeding the creation of ICT spin-offs? Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22(4), 479–493. Koch, A. (2011). Firm-internal knowledge integration and the effects on innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 984–996. Kong, E., Jenkins, S., & Ardagh, D. (2009). A preliminary analysis of learning processes for innovation in member-serving nonprofit organisations: The role of governance structure and its elements—Shared knowledge, decision making and benefit sharing. International Journal of Learning, 16(6), 1–16. Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing management: Millenium edition. Prentice Hall. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. Krueger, R. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

292

References

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kusunoki, K. I., Nonaka, I., & Nagata, A. (1998). Organisational capabilities in product development of japanese firms: A conceptual framework and empirical findings. Organisation Science, 9, 699–718. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage Publications. Laihonen, H. (2006). Knowledge flows in self-organizing processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 127–135. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Lakomski, G. (2001). Organisational change, leadership and learning: Culture as cognitive process. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 68–77. Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lampel, J., Shamsie, J., & Shapira, Z. (2009). Experiencing the improbable: Rare events and organisational learning. Organisation Science, 20, 835–845. Lancaster, S., Di Milia, L., & Canmeron, R. (2013). Supervisor behaviours that facilitate training transfer. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(1), 6–22. Lane, J. E. (2011). Importing private higher education: International branch campuses. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 13(4), 367–381. Lantz, A. (2011). Teamwork on the line can pay off down the line. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(2), 75–96. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lea, S. E. G., & Webley, P. (1997). Pride in economic psychology. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(2–3), 323–340. Leblanc, S. M., Leblanc, S. & Hogg, J. (2006). Storytelling in knowledge management: An effective tool for uncovering tacit knowledge. STC Atlanta Currents Conference (2006). Lechner, C. & Dowling, M. (2003). Firm networks: External relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 15. Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organisational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179–228. Leiponen, A. (2006). Managing knowledge for innovation: The case of business-to-business services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(3), 238–258. Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2010). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 224–236. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Well springs of knowledge: Building and sustaining the source of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112–132. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organisational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(3), 319–340. Lewis, R. (1994). From chaos to complexity: Implications for organisations. Executive Development, 7(4), 16–17. Lewis, K. (2000). Is performance all in their mind(s)? The impact of transactive memory on knowledge-worker team performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Toronto, Canada. Lim, F. C. B. (2010). Do too many rights make a wrong? A qualitative study of the experiences of a sample of Malaysian and Singapore private higher education providers in transnational quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 16(3), 211–222. Lin, C. C. (2008). The role of the registered nurse in Taiwanese nursing homes: a grounded theory study (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology).

References

293

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Linehan, M. (2008). Work-based learning: Graduating through the workplace. Bishoptown, Cork, Ireland: CIT Press. Lines, R. (2005). The structure and function of attitudes toward organisational change. Human Resource Development Review, 4(1), 8–32. Lipshitz, R., Freedman, V., & Popper, M. (2007). Demystifying organisational learning. San Francisco, CA: Sage Publications. Lloria, M. B. (2008). A review of the main approaches to knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 6(1), 77–89. Locke, K. D. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1999). Data logging in observation: Fieldnotes. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Qualitative research (Vol. 3). London: Sage Publications. Lopez, S. P., Peon, J. M. M., & Ordas, C. J. V. (2005). Organisational learning as a determining factor in business performance. The Learning Organisation, 12(3), 227–245. López-Nicolás, C., & Meroño-Cerdán, A. L. (2011). Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance. International Journal of Information Management, 31(6), 502–509. Lundvall, B.-A., & Tomlinson, M. (2002). International benchmarking as a policy learning tool. In M. J. Rodrigues (Ed.), The New Knowledge Economy in Europe. Cheltenham: Elgar Publishers. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lundvall, B. K., & Nielsen, P. (2007). Knowledge management and innovation performance. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 207–223. Magnier-Watanabae, R. M., Benton, C., & Senoo, D. (2011). A study of knowledge management enablers across countries. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 9, 17–28. Maidique, M. A., & Zirger, B. J. (1985). The new product learning cycle. Research Policy, 14, 299–313. Malhotra, Y. (2001). Expert systems for knowledge management: Crossing the chasm between information processing and sense making. Expert Systems with Applications, 20, 7–16. Maltz, E., Souder, W. E., & Kumar, A. (2001). Influencing R&D/marketing integration and the use of market information by R&D managers: Intended and unintented effects of managerial actions. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 69–82. Mangham, I. L. (1996). Some consequences of taking Gareth Morgan seriously. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organisations (pp. 21–36). London: Sage Publications. Manral, L. (2011). Managerial cognition as bases of innovation in organisation. Management Research Review, 34(5), 576–594. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organisational learning. Organisation Science, 2(1), 71–87. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1975). The uncertainty of the past: Organisational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 147–171. Marcy, R. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Social innovation: Enhancing creative performance through casual analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 123–140. Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian model. Higher Education, 61(5), 587–611. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications. Marsick, V. J. (2009). Toward a unifying framework to support informal learning theory, research and practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(4), 265–275. Marsick, V. J., Volpe, M., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Theory and practice of informal learning in the knowledge era. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1(3), 80–95.

294

References

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. New York, NY: Routledge. Martin, A. J. (2006). A motivational psychology for the education of Indigenous students. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 35, 30–43. Martın-de-Castro, G., Delgado-Verde, M., López-Sáez, P., & Navas-López, J. E. (2011). Towards ‘an intellectual capital-based view of the firm’: Origins and nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 649–662. Martín-de Castro, G., López-Sáez, P., Delgado-Verde, M., Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2011). Organizational factors to support knowledge management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management. Matthias, H. J., & Gouthier, M. R. (2011). Organisational pride and its positive effects on employee behaviour. Journal of Service Management, 22(5), 633–649. Mason, R. B. (2007). The external environment’s effect on management and strategy: A complexity theory approach. Management Decision, 45(1), 10–28. Mattarelli, E., & Gupta, A. (2009). Offshore-onsite subgroup dynamics in globally distributed teams. Information Technology & People, 22(3), 242–269. Maurer, T., & Lippstreu, M. (2008). Who will be committed to an organisation that provides support for employee development? Journal of Management Development, 27(3), 328–347. Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organisation Science, 11(5), 473–492. McCarthy, I. P. (2003). Technology management—A complex adaptive systems approach. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(8), 728–745. McElroy, M. W. (2000). Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organisational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 195–203. McElroy, M. W. (2002). Social innovation capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(1), 30–39. McElroy, M. W. (2003). The new knowledge management: Complexity, learning, and sustainable innovation. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. McElroy, M. W., Jorna, R. J., & Van Engelen, J. (2006). Rethinking social capital theory: A knowledge management perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(5), 124–136. McInerney, C. R., & Koenig, M. E. D. (2011). Knowledge management (KM) processes in organisations: Theoretical foundations and practice. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool. McLoughlin, D., & Horan, C. (2000). Business marketing: Perspectives from the markets-asnetworks approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4), 285–292. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1984). Research in education: A conceptual introduction. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual understanding. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Meenakshi, N. (2002). Knowledge sharing in schools: Perceptions of teachers (Unpublished dissertation). Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Merat, A., & Bo, D. (2013). Strategic analysis of knowledge firms: The links between knowledge management and leadership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 3–15. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study. Applications in education. Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Meyer, H.-D. (2003). Between theory and experience: The dia-logical nature of managerial knowledge—Implications for the preparation of education leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(5), 455–470. Mezias, J. M., Grinyer, P., & Guth, W. D. (2001). Changing collective cognition: A process model for strategic change. Long Range Planning, 34, 71–95. Miciunas, G. (2002). What makes for effective organisational architecture in corporate real estate? Going beyond reporting structure and sourcing decisions to considering strategic design issues. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 5(1), 19–30. Mieg, H. A., & Topfer, K. (2012). Institutional and social innovation for sustainable urban development. London: Routledge.

References

295

Mieres, C. G., Sánchez, J. Á. L., & Vijande, M. L. S. (2012). Internal marketing, innovation and performance in business services firms: The role of organisational unlearning. International Journal of Management, 29(4), 403. Mikkelsen, A., & Gronhaug, K. (1999). Measuring organisational learning climate: A cross-national replication and instrument validation study among public sector employes. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(31), 15. Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 590–601. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded source book: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Miles, R. E., Miles, G., Snow, C. C., Blomqvist, K., & Rocha, H. (2009). The I-form organisation. California Management Review, 51(4), 61–76. Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Miller, K., McAdam, R., Moffett, S., & Brennan, M. (2011). An exploratory study of retaining and maintaining knowledge in university technology transfer processes. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(6), 663–684. Miller, K., Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. (2006). Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March’s exploration-exploitation model. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 709–722. Miller, R. L., & Brewer, J. D. (Eds.). (2003). The A-Z of social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Miller, T. & Boulton, M. (2007). Changing constructions of informed consent: Qualitative research and complex social worlds. Social Science & Medicine 65(11). Miller, W. L., & Morris, L. (1998). Fourth generation R&D. New York, NY: Wiley. Mingers, J. (2008). Management knowledge and knowledge management: Realism and forms of truth. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6, 62–76. Minoja, M., Zollo, M., & Coda, V. (2010). Stakeholder cohesion, innovation, and competitive advantage. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 10(4), 395– 405. Mintzberg, H., Alstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (2009). Strategy safari. London: Prentice Hall. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876–910. Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2011). Research for theory and practice. In S. A. Mohrman & E. E. Lawler (Eds.), Useful research: Advancing theory and practice (pp. 9–33). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. I. I. I. (2012). Generating knowledge that drives change. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 41–51. Mok, K. H. (2008). Singapore’s global education hub ambitions: University governance change and transnational higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(6), 527–546. Mok, K. H. (2011). The quest for regional hub of education: Growing heterarchies, organisational hybridization, and new governance in Singapore and Malaysia. Journal of Education Policy, 26(1), 61–81. Molnar, E., & Mulville, P. (2003). Sustainability-focused organisational learning: Recent experiences and new challenges. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(2), 167–179. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Mortati, M., & Cruickshank, L. (2012). NETS: A design tool for activating social networks. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 18(4), 509–523. Moskaliuk, J., & Kimmerle, J. (2009). Using wikis for organisational learning: functional and psycho-social principles. Development and Learning in Organisations, 23(4), 21–24.

296

References

Mulej, M. (2010). Action makes innovation from knowledge and invention-diffusion of novelties revisited, and made more/requisitely holistic. In M. Rebernik, B. Bradac & M. Rus (Eds.), Selling innovative ideas: Proceedings of the 30th Conference on Entrepreneurship and Innovation Maribor—PODIM (pp. 203–216). University of Maribor, EPF, Maribor. Mumford, M. D. (2002). Social innovation: Ten cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 253–266. Murat, I., & Baki, B. (2011). Antecedents and performance impacts of product versus process innovation: Empirical evidence from SMEs located in the Turkish science and technology parks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 172–206. Murray, C. (2009). Diffusion of innovation theory: A bridge for the research–practice gap in counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 87(Winter), 108–116. Murray, P., & Blackman, D. (2006). Managing innovation through social architecture, learning, and competencies: A new conceptual approach. Knowledge and Process Management, 13, 132–143. Murray, P. A., Syed, J., & Roberts, Z. (2009). Structures of learning for dynamic markets. Management Decision, 47(2), 271–288. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. London: Young Foundation, NESTA. Moustaghfir, K., & Schiuma, G. (2013). Knowledge, learning, and innovation: Research and perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(4), 495–510. Naegele, G., & Walker, A. (2006). A guide to good practice in age management. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organisational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Nardi, B., & Whittaker, S. (2002). The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., & Schwarz, H. (2002). Networkers and their activity in intentional network. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(1/2), 205–242. Nejdl, W. & Tochtermann, K. (2006). Innovative approaches for learning and knowledge sharing. In 1st European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2006, Crete, Greece, October 1–4, 2006: Proceedings, Springer. Newell, S., Robertson, M., & Scarborough, H. (2002). Managing knowledge work. London: Palgrave. Ng, K. Y., & Earley, C. P. (2006). Culture and intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers. Group and Organisation Management, 31, 4–19. Ng, P. T., & Tan, C. (2010). The Singapore Global Schoolhouse: An analysis of the development of the tertiary education landscape in Singapore. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(3), 178–188. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K. & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review (September), 57–64. Nielsen, A. P. (2006). Understanding dynamic capabilities through knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 59–71. Nikoulou-Walker, E. (2008). The expanded university: Work-based learning and the economy. Essex: Pearson. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review 69(November/December), 96–104. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation. Organisation Science, 5, 14–37. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of ’bal: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1), 1–20.

References

297

Nonaka, I., & Von Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organisational knowledge creation theory. Organisation Science, 20(3), 635–652. O’Connor, A. (2009). Enterprise, education and economic development: An exploration of entrepreneurship’s economic function in the Australian government’s education policy. Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology-2009. O’Keeffe, T. (2002). Organisational learning: A new perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(2), 130–141. Oates, T., Bresciani, P. G., & Clematide, B. (2002). Qualifications, competences and learning environments for the future: Analyses of the development in three parallel approaches. In P. Kämäräinen, G. Attwell, & A. Brown (Eds.), Transformation of learning in education and training. CEDEFOP: Thessaloniki. Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the teritus iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100–130. Oh, K.-Y., Cruickshank, D., & Anderson, A. R. (2009). The adoption of e-trade innovations by Korean small and medium sized firms. Technovation, 29(2), 110–121. Olds, K. (2007). Global assemblage: Singapore, foreign universities, and the construction of a ‘global education hub’. World Development, 35(6), 959–975. Oluikpe, P. I. (2015). Knowledge creation and utilization in project teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 351–371. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). OECD factbook: Economic, environmental and social statistics. OECD. Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organisational forms. Organisation Science, 11(5), 538–550. Ovretveit, J., Andreen-Sachs, M., Carlsson, J., Gustafsson, H., Hansson, J., Keller, C., … Brommels, M. (2012). Implementing organisation and management innovations in Swedish healthcare: Lessons from a comparison of 12 cases. Journal of Health Organisation and Management 26(2), 237–257. Palmberg, K. (2009). Complex adaptive systems as metaphors for organisational management. The Learning Organisation, 16(6), 483–498. Pan, S. L., & Scarbrough, H. (1998). A socio-technical view of knowledge sharing at Buckman Laboratories. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 55–66. Papert, S. & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism. 193–206. (Ablex Publishing Corporation). Park, H., Ribiere, V., & Schulte, W. D., Jr. (2004). Critical attributes of organisational culture that promote knowledge management technology implementation success. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 106–117. Parra-Requena, G., Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., & Garcia-Villaverde, P. M. (2013). Social capital and effective innovation in industrial districts: Dual effect of absorptive capacity. Industry and Innovation, 20(2), 157–179. Passila, A., Oikarinen, T., & Kallio, A. (2013). Creating dialogue by storytelling. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(3), 159–177. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (1989). Utilisation-focused evaluation (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pederson, L., Dresdow, S., & Benson, J. (2013). Significant tasks in training of job-shop supervisors. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(1), 23–36. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development. London: McGraw-Hill.

298

References

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1996). The learning company. A strategy for sustainable development. London: McGraw-Hill. Peltokorpi, V., Nonaka, I., & Kodama, M. (2007). NTT DoCoMo’s launch of I-mode in the Japanese mobile phone market: A knowledge creation perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 50–72. Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. New York, NY: Rowman Littlefield Publishers. Pitt, M., Bruwer, J., Nel, D., & Berthon, J. P. (1999). A framework for research in internal marketing and the study of service quality: Some propositions. Management Research News, 22(7), 1–11. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Installing mechanisms and instilling values: The role of leadership in organisational learning. The Learning Organisation, 7(3), 135–144. Por, G. (2000). Nurturing systemic wisdom through knowledge ecology. The Systems Thinker, 11(8), 1–5. Pot, F., & Vaas, F. (2008). Social innovation, the new challenge for Europe. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(6), 468–473. Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 6–23. Powell, J. (2012). The university role in the innovative leadership of small to medium sized enterprises: Towards ‘universities for a modern renaissance’ (UMR). International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 18(4), 396–416. Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 159–170. Probst, G., & Büchel, B. (1997). Organisational learning: The competitive advantage of the future. London: Prentice Hall. Prusak, L. (2001). Where did knowledge management come from? IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 1002–1008. Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1969). The context of organisation structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 91–113. Purcarea, I., del Mar Benavides Espinosa, M. & Apetrei, A. (2013). Innovation and knowledge creation: Perspectives on the SMEs sector. Management Decision 51(5), 1096–1107. Quinn, J. B., & Strategy, E. S. (2013). Strategic outsourcing: Leveraging knowledge capabilities. Sloan Management Review, 35, 43–55. Quintane, E., Casselman, M. R., Reiche, S. B., & Nylund, P. A. (2011). Innovation as a knowledgebased outcome. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 928–947. Raelin, J. A. (2008). Work-based learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Raghu, T. S., & Vinze, A. (2007). A business process context for knowledge management. Decision Support Systems, 43, 1062–1079. Rajat, G. (2012). Bridging the gap in knowledge transfer between academia and practitioners. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(3), 252–273. Ramanathan, K. (2006). Workplace learning: implications for knowledge management initiatives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://repository.ntu.edu.sg/handle/10356/1494. Ramzan, Y. (2009). The construction of interculturality in the context of foreign language education: a case study of Japanese language learning in Australian primary schools. Rapert, M. I., & Wren, B. M. (1998). Reconsidering organisational structure: A dual perspective of frameworks and processes. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, 287–302. Rapley, T. (2004). Interviews. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 15–33). London: Sage Publications. Rastogi, P. N. (2000). Knowledge management and intellectual capital—The new virtuous reality competitiveness. Human Systems Management, 19(1), 39–48. Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organisational identity threats: Exploring the role of organisational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 433–458.

References

299

Reay, P., & Seddighi, H. R. (2012). An empirical evaluation of management and operational capabilities for innovation via co-creation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(2), 259–275. Reamy, T. (2002). Imparting knowledge through storytelling. Part 1 & 2. Knowledge Management World 11(6). Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reychav, I., & Weisberg, J. (2010). Bridging intention and behaviour of knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), 285–300. Rhodes, J., Lok, P., Hung, R. Y. Y., & Fang, S. C. (2008). An integrative model of organisational learning and social capital on effective knowledge transfer and perceived organisational performance. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(4), 245–258. Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Richardson, K. A. (2008). Managing complex organisations: Complexity thinking and the science and art of management. E:CO 10(2), 13–26. Richardson, G. P., & Andersen, D. F. (1995). Teamwork in Group Model Building. System Dynamics Review, 11(2), 113–137. Richardson, K., & Cilliers, P. (2001). Special editors introduction: What is complexity science? A view from different directions. Emergence, 3(1), 5–23. Ries, K., & Trout, N. (1981). Dimensions of innovation in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(7), 273–286. Ritter, T. (1999). The networking company: Antecedents for coping with relationships and networks effectively. Industrial Marketing Management, 28, 467–479. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106. Roffe, I. (1999). Innovation and creativity in organisations: A review of the implications for training and development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), 224–241. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Rogers, E. M., & Singhal, A. (1996). Diffusion of innovations. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 409–420). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rohrbeck, R., Hölzle, K., & Gemünden, H. G. (2009). Opening up for competitive advantage—How Deutsche Telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem. R&D Management, 39(4), 420–430. Roleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegivning: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413–1441. Rook, L. (2013). Mental models: A robust definition. The Learning Organisation, 20(1), 38–47. Rosenberg, M. J. (2006). Beyond e-learning: Approaches and technologies to enhance organisational knowledge, learning, and performance. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Rowley, J. (1999). What is knowledge management? Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(8), 416–419. Ryan, A., Mitchell, I. K., & Daskou, S. (2012). An interaction and networks approach to developing sustainable organisations. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 25(4), 578–594. Sabherwal, R., & Sabherwal, S. (2005). Knowledge management using information technology: Determinants of short-term impact on firm value. Decision Science, 36(4), 531–567. Sadler-Smith, E., Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (2000). Learning preferences and cognitive style: Some implications for continuing professional development. Management Learning, 31(2), 239– 256.

300

References

Sambamurthy, V. & Subramani, M. (2005). Foreword. Special issue on information technologies and knowledge management. MIS Quarterly 29(1), 1–7. Sambrook, S. (2003). E-learning in small organisations. Education & Training, 45(8/9), 506–516. Sandberg, J., & Targama, A. (2007). Managing understanding in organisations. London: Sage Publications. Sanderson, G. (2002). International education developments in Singapore. Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Harlow: FT Prentice Hall. Savaneviciene, A., & Stankeviciute, Z. (2010). The models exploring the ‘Black Box’ between HRM and organisational performance. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 21(4), 426–434. Sanz-Valle, R., Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Perez-Caballero, L. (2011). Linking organisational learning with technical innovation and organisational culture. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 997–1015. Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (1999). Knowledge management: A literature review. London: Institute of Personnel and Development. Scarbrough, H. (2003). Knowledge management, HRM and innovation process. International Journal of Manpower, 24(5), 501–516. Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003). Discourses of knowledge management and the learning organisation: Their production and consumption. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of organisational learning and knowledge management (pp. 495–512). London: Blackwell Publishing. Schiuma, G. (2012). Managing knowledge for business performance improvement. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 515–522. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organisational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Schleimer, S., & Riege, A. (2009). Knowledge transfer between globally dispersed units at BMW. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 27–41. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Schwaninger, M., & Hamann, T. (2005). Theory-building with system dynamics. In R. MorenoDíaz, F. Pichler, & A. Quesada-Arencibia (Eds.), Computer aided systems theory—EUROCAST (pp. 56–62). Berlin: Springer. Schwaninger, M., & Groesser, S. N. (2008). Model-based theory-building with system dynamics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(4), 447–465. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organisations (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. Selye, H. (1987). Stress without distress. London: Transworld. Senge, P. (2013). Learning organisations. In Knowledge management in education: Enhancing learning and education (p. 77). Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. NewYork, NY: Doubleday/Currency. Senge, P. M., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline field book: Strategies and tools for building a learning organisation. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Sense, A. J. (2003). Learning generators: Project teams re-conceptualized. Project Management Journal, 343–361.

References

301

Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2013). The intellectual core and impact of the knowledge management academic discipline. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 137. Shandler, D. (2000). Competency and the learning organisation. Crisp Learning. Shani, A. B., Sena, J. A., & Olin, T. (2003). Knowledge management and new product development: A study of two companies. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(3), 137–149. Sheng, M. L., Chang, S. Y., Teo, T., & Lin, Y. F. (2013). Knowledge barriers, knowledge transfer, and innovation competitive advantage in healthcare settings. Management Decision, 51(3), 461–478. Sher, P. J., & Lee, V. C. (2004). Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic capabilities through knowledge management. Information and Management, 41(8), 933–945. Shih, H. A., & Chiang, Y. H. (2005). Strategy alignment between HRM, KM and corporate development. International Journal of Manpower, 26(6), 582–602. Shin, J. C., & Harman, G. (2009). New challenges for higher education: Global and Asia-Pacific perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 1–13. Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organisational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 7–28. Sidhu, R. (2005). Building a global schoolhouse: International education in Singapore. Australian Journal of Education, 49(1), 46–65. Silverman, D. (2011). Qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Simpson, P. (2007). Organizing in the mist: A case study in leadership and complexity. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 28(5), 465–482. Sink, D. S., & Tuttle, T. C. (1989). Planning and measurement in your organisation of the Future. Norcross, GA: Industrial Engineering and Management Press. Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organisational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45. Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psycholocfical Review, 5, 193–216. Slappendel, C. (1996). Perspectives on innovation in organisations. Organisation Studies, 17(1), 107–129. Smith, A. (2005). Complexity theory for organisational futures studies. Foresight, 7(3), 22–30. Smith, A., Pruyn, A., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organisational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1051–1062. Smith., G, Blackman., D. & Good, B. (2003). Knowledge sharing and organisational learning: The impact of social architecture at ordnance survey. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 1–14. Snyder, W., Wenger, E., & De Sousa Briggs, X. (2004). Communities of practice in government: Leveraging knowledge for performance. The Public Manager, 32(4), 17–21. Soliman, F. (2011). Could one transformational leader convert the organisation from knowledge based into learning organisation, then into innovation? Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 7(12), 1352–1361. Soh, P. H. (2003). The role of networking alliances in information acquisition and its implication for new product performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 727–744. Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45–62. Spender, J. C. (2005). An overview: What’s new and important about knowledge management? Building new bridges between managers and academics. In S. Little & T. Ray (Eds.), Managing knowledge: An essential reader. London: Sage Publications. Spicer, D. P. (1998). Linking mental models and cognitive maps as an aid to organisational learning. Career Development International, 3(3), 125–132. Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2011). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 31(1), 10–21. Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organisations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

302

References

Stacey, R. (2003a). Organisations as complex responsive processes of relating. Journal of Innovative Management (Winter), 27–39. Stacey, R. (2003b). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity (4th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall. Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D., & Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking?. New York, NY: Routledge. Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Shouldn’t organisation theory emerge from adolescence? Organisation, 10(3), 439–452. Stata, R. (1989). Organisational learning—The key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review (Spring), 63–74. Stata, R. (1996). Organisational learning: The key to management innovation. In K. Starkey (Ed.), How organisations learn (pp. 316–334). London: International Thomson Business Press. Steier, F. A. (2003). The changing nexus: Tertiary education institutions, the marketplace and the State. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 158–180. Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organisations. New York, NY: Doubleday. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research—Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strübing, J. (2007). Research as pragmatic problem-solving: The pragmatist roots of empricallygrounded theorizing. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 580–601). London: Sage Publications. Sturman, A. (1999). Case study methods. In J. Keeves & G. Lakomski (Eds.), Issues in educational research (pp. 103–111). New York: Pergamon. Sullivan, L. (1896). The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincott’s Magazine, 57, 403–409. Sundbo, J. (1997). Management of innovation in services. The Service Industries Journal, 17(3), 432–455. Sundstrom, B. (2014). Breaking women’s health taboos: Integrating diffusion of innovations theory with social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/152450041452 5774. Suthers, D. D. (2005). Collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on the System sciences (HICSS-38). Waikoloa, Hawaii, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (CD Rom). Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001). Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 95– 114. Symon, G., Cassell, C. M., & Dickson, R. (2000). Expanding our research and practice through innovative research methods. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 9(4), 457–462. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(Winter Special Issue), 27–43. Taatila, V. P. (2004). The concept of organisational competence: A foundational analysis. Jyväskylä Studies in Computing 36. Taatila, V. P., Suomala, J., Siltala, R. & Keskinen, S. (2006). Framework to study the social innovation networks. European Journal of Innovation Management 9(3). Taft, R. (1999). Ethnographic research methods. In J. Keeves & G. Lakomski (Eds.), Issues in educational research (pp. 113–120). New York, NY: Pergamon. Taminiau, Y., Smit, W., & Lange, A. D. (2009). Innovation in management consulting firms through informal knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 42–55. Tatiana, A., & Aino, K. (2011). Knowledge processes, knowledge-intensity and innovation: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 1016–1034.

References

303

Tatiana, A., & Aino, K. (2012). Does knowledge management really matter? Linking knowledge management practices, competitiveness and economic performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 617–636. Tatiana, G., & Tatiana, A. (2012). Knowledge elicitation techniques in a knowledge management context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 523–537. Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management: Organizing for innovation and growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ten Have, S., Ten Have, W., Stevens, F., & Van der Elst, M. (2003). Key management models. London: Prentice Hall. Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D. A., & Russell, C. J. (2005). The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 270–283. Tilebein, M. (2006). A complex adaptive systems approach to efficiency and innovation. Kybernetes, 35(7/8), 1087–1099. Tolman, E. C. (1934). Theories of learning. In F. A. Moss (Ed.), Comparative psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Toole, J. C., & Louis, K. S. (2002). The role of professional learning communities in international education. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tosey, P., & Mathison, J. (2008). Do organisations learn? Some implications for HRD of Bateson’s levels of learning. Human Resource Development Review, 7(1), 13–31. Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganisational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004. Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of ‘coopetion’ within a multiunit organisation: Coordination, competition, and intraorganisational knowledge sharing. Organisation Science, 13(2), 179–190. Tsang, E. W. (1997). Organisational learning and the learning organisation: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1), 73–89. Tseng, S. M. (2008). The effects of information technology on knowledge management systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(1–2), 150–160. Tsoukas, H. (2004). Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In M. Dierkes, A. Berthoin, J. Child & I. Nonaka (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organisational learning and knowledge management (pp. 410–427). Oxford: Blackwell. Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organisations. Organisation Science, 20(6), 941–957. Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organisational knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973–993. Tuckett, A., & Stewart, D. (2004a). Collecting qualitative data: Part I: Journal as a method: Experience, rationale and limitations. Contemporary Nurse, 16(1–2), 104–113. Tuckett, A., & Stewart, D. (2004b). Collecting qualitative data: Part II: Group discussion as a method: Experience, rationale, limitations. Contemporary Nurse, 16(3), 240–251. Turner, J. R., Zimmerman, T., & Allen, J. F. (2012). Teams as a sub-process for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6), 963–977. Tzabbar, D. & Vestal, A. (2014). The interdependencies of formal and informal network structure and the exploration of new technological opportunities among geographically dispersed firms. In B. S. Aharonson, U. Stettner, T. L. Amburgey, S. Ellis, I. Drori (Eds.), Understanding the Relationship Between Networks and Technology, Creativity and Innovation: Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Competitive Strategy (Vol. 13, pp. 123–163). Emerald Group Publishing. Urry, J. (2003). Global complexity. Cambridge: Polity. Vallerand, R. J., & Houlfort, N. (2003). Passion at work: Toward a new conceptualization. In D. Skarlicki, S. Gilliland, & D. Steiner (Eds.), Social issues in management (pp. 175–204). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

304

References

Van Auken, H., Madrid-Guijarro, A., & Garcia-Perezde-Lema, D. (2008). Innovation and performance in Spanish manufacturing SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 8(1), 36–56. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590–607. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van den Hooff, B., & Van Weenen, F. D. L. (2004). Committed to share: Commitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(1), 13–24. Van, D. S. R., & Spijkervet, A. (1997). Knowledge management: Dealing intelligently with knowledge. In J. Leibowitz & L. C. Wilcox (Eds.), Knowledge management and its integrative element (pp. 31–59). Washington, DC: CRC Press. Van de Vrande, V., & De Man, A. P. (2011). A response to ‘is open innovation a field of study or a communication barrier to theory development?’. Technovation, 31(4), 185–186. Vaughan, D. (1992). Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis. In C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 173–202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vennix, J. (1996). Group model building: Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: Wiley. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2003). Organisational learning and knowledge management: Toward an integrative framework. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organisational learning and knowledge management (pp. 122–142). Melbourne: Blackwell. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organisational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222–240. Von Foerster, H. (1984). Observing systems (2nd ed.). Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications. Von Hayek, F. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530. Von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133–153. Von Krogh, G. (2004). Knowledge sharing and the communal resource. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organisational learning and knowledge management (pp. 373–392). Oxford: Blackwell. Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation (pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Von Krogh, G., Kim, S. & Erden, Z. (2008). Fostering the knowledge-sharing behavior of customers in interorganisational healthcare communities. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Network and Parallel Computing. Shanghai, Peoples Republic of China, IEEE Computer Soc. Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Ichijo, K. (1997). Develop knowledge activists! European Management Journal, 15(5), 475–483. Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Razali, M. Z. (2010). Internal marketing as an agent of change—Implementing a new human resource information system for Malaysian airlines. Journal of General Management, 36(1), 21–41. Vuori, V., & Okkonen, J. (2012). Knowledge sharing motivational factors of using an intraorganisational social media platform. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 592–603. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wallis, E. S. (2008). Emerging order in CAS theory: Mapping some perspectives. Kybernetes, 37(7), 1016–1029. Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organisational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organisation Science, 6(3), 280–321.

References

305

Wang, C. L. & Ahmed, P. K. (2001). Creative quality and value innovation: A platform for competitive success. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of ISO9000 and TQM Scotland, April, 323–329. Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2003). Organisational learning: A critical review. The Learning Organisation, 10(1), 8–17. Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303–313. Wang, M., Ran, W., Liao, J., & Yang, S. J. H. (2010). A performance-oriented approach to e-learning in the workplace. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 167–179. Warhurst, R. P. (2013). Learning in an age of cuts: Managers as enablers of workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(1), 37–57. Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (Eds.). (1993). Sculpting the learning organisation: Lessons in the art and science of systematic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Watson, T. (2003). In search of management: Culture, chaos and control in managerial work (6th ed.). London: Thomson Learning. Waychal, P., Mohanty, R. P., & Ajit, V. (2011). Leading indicators of innovation as a competence for individuals: An empirical study. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 8(2), 301–322. Workforce Development Agency (WDA) Singapore. (2012). Retrieved from http://eresources.nlb. gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1601_2009-10-31.html. Weerawardena, J., O’Cass, A., & Julian, C. (2006). Does industry matter? Examining the role of industry structure and organisational learning in innovation and brand performance. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 37–45. Weick, K., & Westley, F. (1996). Organisational learning: Affirming an oxymoron. London: Sage Publications. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organisational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386. Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organisation. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organisation Science, 16(4), 409–421. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organisation, 7(2), 225– 246. Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words (pp. 209–218). London: Routledge. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Wenger, E., Trayner, B. & De Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. In Rapport 18. Ruud de Moor Centrum; Open University of The Netherlands. West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organisational strategies (pp. 3–14). Chichester: Wiley. Wetzel, D. K., & Buch, K. (2000). Using a structural model to diagnose organisations and develop congruent interventions. Organisation Development Journal, 18(4), 9–19. Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler Publishers. Whittington, K. B., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2009). Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 90–122. Whyte, G., & Classen, S. (2012). Using storytelling to elicit tacit knowledge from SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6), 950–962.

306

References

Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: An introduction and perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(1), 6–14. Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. Widad, G., Rouchier, J., & Orillard, M. (2013). Structuring knowledge transfer from experts to newcomers. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 67–68. Wirtenberg, J., Russell, W. G., & Lipsky, D. (2009). The sustainable enterprise fieldbook: When it all comes together. New York, NY: Greenleaf/AMACOM. Wofford, M. G., Ellinger, A. D., & Watkins, K. E. (2013). Learning on the fly: Exploring the informal learning process of aviation instructors. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(2), 79–97. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organisational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321. Wycoff, J. (2004). Enterprise innovation. Retrieved from www.innovationtool.com. Xiao, Y. C., & Jin, Y. H. (2010). The hierarchical linear modeling of shared mental model on virtual team effectiveness. Kybernetes, 39(8), 1322–1329. Xu, Y. (2011). Entrepreneurial social capital and cognitive model of innovation. Management Research Review, 34(8), 910–926. Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R., & Griffith, D. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities: Implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 63–93. Yilmaz, L. (2008). Innovation systems are self-organizing complex adaptive systems. Menlo Park, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Yuan, F. R., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342. Zack, M., McKeen, J., & Singh, S. (2009). Knowledge management and organisational performance: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6), 392–409. Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45–58. Zack, M. H. (2002). Epilogue: Developing a knowledge strategy. In N. Bontis & C. W. Choo (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organisational knowledge (pp. 268–276). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Zagzebski, L. (1999). What Is Knowledge? In J. Greco & E. Sosa (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell. Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 925–950. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organisations. London: John Wiley & Sons. Zelaya-Zamora, J., & Senoo, D. (2013). Synthesizing seeming incompatibilities to foster knowledge creation and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 106–122. Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance in SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181–194. Zheng, S., Zhang, W., Wu, X., & Du, J. (2011). Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities and innovation in networked environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 1035–1051. Zimmerman, B., Lindberg, C., & Plsek, P. (1998). Edgeware: Insights from complexity science for health care leaders. Irving, TX: VHA.

Index

A Architectural innovation, v, vi, vii, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18–20, 42–44, 50, 61, 62, 74, 76, 86, 106, 107, 109, 111, 118, 124, 127–131, 133, 154, 160, 161, 163– 165, 168, 170, 172, 174–178, 182, 183, 202, 208, 227, 231, 244, 246, 249–251, 261, 263

C Categories, 3, 4, 16, 43, 72–74, 78, 79, 84, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 97–99, 101–108, 111, 112, 123–133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 145, 164, 175, 183, 184, 187, 208, 230, 246, 248, 252 Collective networks, 10, 18, 103, 104, 108, 111, 112, 125–127, 131, 136, 138, 152, 154, 155, 157–161, 209, 211, 215, 218, 220, 223, 230, 242, 243, 272 Collective relationships, viii, 18, 41, 90, 103, 104, 111, 123, 126, 127, 136, 138, 140, 141, 143, 145–147, 152, 159, 160, 207, 209–215, 217–219, 221, 222, 224–227, 229, 230, 233, 238, 240, 242, 243, 246, 250, 253, 262, 271, 272 Credibility, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 90, 91 Cultural innovation, v, vi, vii, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18–20, 42–44, 50, 61, 62, 74, 76, 86, 106, 107, 109–111, 124, 130, 131, 133, 150, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 190, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 208, 243, 244, 246, 247, 249–251, 253, 261–263

D Data collection process, v, 4, 5

G Geographically, vi, vii, viii, 1–22, 27, 30, 31, 36–38, 41–51, 54–58, 61–63, 65–68, 71–74, 76, 86–88, 90, 92, 95, 97, 98, 103, 104, 106–113, 115, 116, 121– 124, 127, 128, 133, 135, 137, 140, 142, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154–156, 159, 161, 162, 168–172, 174–176, 180–186, 190–192, 194, 195, 198, 199, 202, 203, 205–211, 213–219, 221–263 Geographically dispersed team, v, vii, viii, 3, 5–7, 12, 14, 16–18, 20, 43, 45, 51, 54, 56, 58, 63, 68, 72, 90, 92, 104, 106, 109, 110, 203, 206, 207, 210, 218, 224, 230, 233, 234, 236, 239–242, 246–248, 251, 255, 256, 258–260, 262, 263 Grounded theory, viii, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 21, 66– 68, 71–77, 79, 81, 84, 87, 93, 94, 102, 106, 127, 133, 207, 210, 247, 252, 266, 268

I Innovation, v, vi, vii, viii, 1–22, 27, 29–31, 34–70, 72–76, 78, 79, 84, 86, 87, 90, 92, 97, 103, 104, 106–112, 114, 115, 119–121, 123–133, 135–141, 143– 152, 154–157, 159–165, 168–172,

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. Kesavan, Enablers of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9793-0

307

308 174–179, 181–187, 189–203, 205– 215, 217–220, 222–224, 226–228, 230–235, 237–263, 274 Integrative study, v K Knowledge management, v, vii, 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11–13, 18, 33, 39, 57, 65, 67, 71, 87, 205, 243, 246, 257, 263, 266, 267, 269, 270 Knowledge sharing mechanisms, v, vii, viii, 14, 15, 51, 56, 62, 68, 103, 141, 149, 206, 207, 210, 224, 243, 246, 248, 251, 252, 262 L Learning, v, vi, vii, viii, 1–20, 22–25, 28–42, 44–52, 54–68, 71–74, 76, 77, 86–88, 90–92, 97, 98, 100, 101, 104, 105, 108, 110–116, 118–129, 131–133, 135–137, 139–156, 158–163, 165– 175, 177–203, 205–243, 245–251, 253–258, 260–263, 266–270, 272 M Methodology, v, vi, viii, 3, 5, 7, 15, 18–20, 62, 65–67, 69–74, 76, 83, 84, 88, 90, 94, 99, 207, 247, 261, 263, 266–270 N Networks, viii, 8–10, 14, 15, 18, 20, 37, 41, 44, 47–50, 53, 54, 56, 61, 62, 65, 68, 90, 96, 103, 104, 107, 108, 111, 112, 115–117, 120, 122, 123, 125– 127, 130, 131, 136–138, 140, 151– 154, 156–161, 172, 173, 192–194, 197, 202, 206, 207, 209, 211, 213– 215, 218–223, 230, 233, 234, 237, 242, 243, 246, 248, 250, 253, 256, 258, 262, 272 O Organisational characteristics, viii, 14, 18, 41, 57, 78, 90, 103, 111, 112, 127– 130, 159–161, 164, 165, 174, 175, 183, 206, 209, 219, 220, 224, 227, 231, 243, 246, 250, 253 Organisational learning, vii, 1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 47, 48, 54, 65, 155, 159, 166, 205, 220, 232, 239, 246, 259, 263, 269, 270

Index Organisational structures, 9, 14, 18, 45, 53, 78, 97, 103, 107, 111, 112, 127–130, 159–162, 164, 170, 174–178, 181, 182, 183, 207, 209, 216, 220, 221, 227, 231, 236, 242, 246, 250 Overt values, viii, 18, 41, 111, 112, 131, 132, 183, 184, 195, 196, 198, 201, 207, 243, 246, 250, 253, 274

P Phases of data collection and analysis, 88, 91

Q Qualitative data, v, 4, 81, 93, 97 Qualitative research, v, 6, 69, 72, 76, 81, 87, 90, 91, 93, 247, 254

R Research process, 5, 7, 67, 76, 93

S Social cognitive schema, viii, 15, 51, 58, 62, 68, 206, 207, 209, 210, 233, 243, 246, 248, 250 Social innovation, v, vi, vii, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18–20, 42–44, 50, 61, 62, 106, 107, 109–111, 124–127, 131, 133, 136– 141, 143, 145–147, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157–160, 183, 197, 202, 208, 209, 243, 244, 246, 247, 253, 262, 263 Social relationship, viii, 15, 50, 54, 62, 68, 107, 136–138, 150, 151, 206, 207, 210, 211, 227, 231, 243, 246, 248, 250, 253, 255, 259

T Tacit values, 111, 112, 131, 132, 183, 184, 186, 189, 190, 192, 193, 274 Theoretical model Integrating, 109 Theory, v, vi, vii, viii, 3–10, 13, 15–21, 29, 30, 37, 38, 40, 42–44, 47–52, 54, 58– 64, 66–79, 81–84, 86–89, 91, 93–95, 101–109, 111, 112, 123, 124, 127, 133, 138, 183, 205, 207, 210, 214, 215, 219, 226, 233, 240, 243, 246, 247, 252, 259, 261, 262, 266–268 Theory exposition, 244, 247, 249 Trustworthiness, 76, 79, 80, 90, 91, 93, 217