A Comparison of Learning Processes and Practices ...

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012

A Comparison of Learning Processes and Practices between Manufacturing and Services Sectors of Pakistan Aqsa Rasheed 1, Qamar Ali2, Sabeen Masood 3, Mian Mudassar Shah4 1

2

(MS Scholar, National University of Modern Languages, Pakistan) (Department of Business Administration, Government College University Faisalabad, Pakistan) 3 (Department of Commerce, Government College University Faisalabad, Pakistan) 4 (MS Scholar, National University of Modern Languages, Pakistan)

ABSTRACT : The objective of this study was to examine the extent of concrete learning processes and practices in manufacturing and services sectors of Pakistan. On the other hand, this study also compares the degrees of concrete learning processes and practices in these two sectors. Five essential factors relating to concrete learning processes and practices were studied. These factors included twenty nine variables for which Mean were calculated. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used to collect the information from respondents. Arithmetic Mean, reliability and factor analysis were applied on data by using SPSS. Results revealed that there was a need to improve the ways of concrete learning processes and practices in both sectors i.e. manufacturing and services. There was no significant discrepancy between scores gained by both sectors. So, it can be derived that the level of concrete learning processes and practices is almost same in both sectors and needs improvement. Keywords - Learning organization, Concrete learning processes and practices, Manufacturing Sector, Services sector, information transfer, experimentation

I.

INTRODUCTION

The only thing which is permanent in the life of an organization is change. Change is a continuous process which has to be adopted by the organizations to meet the competition. If the competitors are ahead in formulation and implementation of change, then, the organization will face failure or decline in market share. In rapidly changing environment, to meet the competition, an organization should be a learning organization. Not only the knowledge management is necessary but individuals also must be prepared to adopt the changes to be a learning organization. In third world countries like Pakistan, the majority of the institutions are suffering because individuals are not organized to accept the new stuffs because of their critical move towards the institute. Learning organization is defined by different scholars. “Learning organization is an organization where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together” (P. M. Senge, 1993). There are five disciplines for learning organization. (1) There should be continuous clarification and deepening of thoughts through personal mastery. (2) Everyone should get out of one’s own paradigm and mental model to accept and inculcate the change into one's behavior. (3) There should be a shared vision and people should excel and learn not because they told so but because they want to. (4) Team learning is the basic thing to create synergy in the organization. (5) System thinking is base for all of four disciplines mentioned above. There should be systematic change (P. M. Senge, 1993). "A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge; and at modifying behavior to reflect new knowledge and insight" (Garvin, 1985). He emphasized on five modules for learning organization. (1) Systematic problem solving (2) 125

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012 Experimentation (3) Learning from experiences (4) Learning from others, and (5) Transferring knowledge (Garvin, 1985). There are three broad factors that are important for adaptability and learning. These are called buildings blocks of a learning organization. These are: "Supportive learning environment, Concrete learning processes and practices, and Leadership behavior that provide reinforcement" (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008). Various studies are conducted on first building block "supportive learning environment". The level of "supportive learning environment" is better in private sector than public sector (Ali, Bajwa, & Shahzad). The most important factor in "supportive learning environment" is psychological safety (Shabbir, 2009). The focus of this study is whether an organization is observing the concrete learning process and practice. Many organizations are not following the learning process. The organizations with concrete learning process are leading their sector. Second building block "concrete learning processes and practices" consists of experimentation, collection of information on competitors and technology, transfer of information and training & development of employees (Garvin et al., 2008). In this study, concrete learning practices are assessed at top and middle level management. This study focuses on Manufacturing and services sectors. A part of the tool developed by Garvin et al. (March, 2008) in the article "Is yours a learning organization?" is being used to assess whether an organization is witnessing concrete learning process and the extent of learning practices being applied in the organization.

II.

LITERATURE REVIEW

"An entity learns if, through its processing of information, the range of potential behaviors increased" (Huber, 1991). "Organizational learning is a process of detecting and correcting errors" (Argyris, 1977). "Organizational learning occurs through shared insights, knowledge, and mental models… (And) build on past knowledge and experience- that is on memory" (Stata, 1989). The most basic type of learning is adaptive or survival learning. It takes place within set of unrecognized and recognized constraints (i.e. boundary of learning) which reveal the suppositions of organization about itself and its atmosphere also (P. Senge, 1990). Adaptive learning is also known as "single loop learning" (Argyris, 1976). Generative learning takes place when an organization shows its willingness to question long-held suppositions about its customs, mission, strategies, or capabilities (P. Senge, 1990). Generative learning is also called "Double loop-learning" (Argyris, 1977). Generative learning is more important than survival learning or adaptive learning. Adaptive learning and generative learning should be combined together to get optimum results. Adaptive learning can help only in survival and generative learning is helpful in getting competitive advantage (P. Senge, 1994). The focal point of learning organization is constant endeavor and a succession of commonly disseminated actions and it consists of numerous comparing performance, experimentation, information collection about the stakeholders, analysis about the performance whether it is engaged in creative work or not, education and training of the individuals and finally information transfer among the whole system of the institutes and among the individuals (Malik, Danish, & Munir). Learning through experience is very important. Each organization should adopt before action review and after action review to bring about change in the behavior and team learning and to have a shared view in the organization, which can collectively take an organization to a better position as compared to rivals (Darling, Parry, & Moore, 2005). Emphasize of any organization must be on the permanent change i.e. Shift of organization from existing position to a new position (Lewin & Gold, 1999). Bringing the 126

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012 organization to a new position involve effort and a complete process. A concrete learning process is essential to bring about positive change in the organization. (Schein,1996). To be level with the shifting environment, organizations require staying flexible and developing their human resources. Organizational learning can help in gaining and supporting competitive advantage which in turns results in the expansion and effectiveness in long-run (Kalyar, Rafi, & Ahmad, 2012). Firms are principally motivated to collaboration for the utilization of their knowledge, firms can produce new knowledge by creating team work spirit in employees (Filiou, 2005). Employee should be encouraged through environment and to adopt learning that would result in the better performance of the organization (Garvin, 1985). Three main characteristics are important in an organization for learning. These are called building blocks by Garvin. These building blocks are "supportive learning environment, concrete learning process, and leadership that enforced learning". These building blocks can separately be used to assess the learning process of an organization (Garvin et al., 2008). In service sectors, quality robustly depends on employees’ dedication for providing advanced services to the clients to boost clients’ contentment. With the help of training and development employees’ expertise and leaning capabilities to execute their everyday jobs effectively and efficiently can be enhanced (Irfan, Mohsin, & Yousaf, 2009). Debatably, successful arrangements of endeavors can work collectively to attain some structure which can contribute to "collective efficiency" which permits them to manage with the challenges of the existing competitive atmosphere (Bessant & Tsekouras, 2001). There is a "significant relationship between learning orientation, innovation capability and organizational performance in the banking sector of Pakistan"(Zahid & Ali). A vast gesture of change pressing downward the services sector is forcing organizations to reorganize their approach and refurbish their structure (Karmarkar, 2004). Regional collective learning involves groups of small and medium sized enterprises which can evolve into those organizations that can impart technological training develop innovative and new products provided environmental, socio-economical institutional conditions and sufficient theoretical backup is conferred. Regional collective learning can progress only under the preconditions for learning involving traditionally accepted rules of behavior, engagement and collaboration and also pre-understood code of conducts between firms and individuals leading to trust development, interfirm relations, and exchange of people and views (Keeble, Lawson, Moore, & Wilkinson, 1999). Many people think that one of the important sources of competitive advantage is getting knowledge through organizational learning. Firms’ performance and organizational learning should be interlinked. Learning organizations, however, have their shortcomings. One of them is that there is paucity of basic work in the field settings because of scarce valid and reliable ways who analyze the collective learning process of organizations. This paper relates to development and validation of ways of higher order (active) and lower order (passive) learning levels and the orientation of the organizations in regard to learning (Sadler-Smith, 2003)

III.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Target population of this study was the organizations from both sectors, i.e. manufacturing and services. The objective of this study was to contrast and assess the concrete learning process of both sectors. To achieve that objective, four organizations from services sector and four organizations from manufacturing sector were chosen on the basis of convenient sampling. The data was collected on the basis of anonymity. Employees at top level management and middle level management from 127

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012 both sectors were considered as the frame of sample. Questionnaire introduced by (Garvin et al., 2008) was used as the tool of this research. The original toolkit consists of three divisions that enclosed all three building blocks i.e. "supportive learning environment, concrete learning process and leadership behavior". But the only part including the questions about concrete learning process was taken to carry out this research. This type of customization was permitted from the developer of tool. Concrete learning process section was further divided into five parts; "Experimentation, Information collection, Analysis, Education & Training, and Information transfer". Forty questionnaires from each sector were filled up. The entire questionnaires were filled in the presence of researcher and doubts from the respondents were entertained respectfully. Questionnaire adopted in this research was selected due to high intensity of recognition of the journal and good reputation of toolkit and used to evaluate the level of learning in the organization. To make sure the accurateness of data and its results, high efforts were made. To ensure the reliability of questionnaire Cronbach's Alpha is applied on the information collected from respondents. Factor analysis technique is also applied to ensure the accurate dimensions of tool. These both techniques are analyzed by using SPSS.

IV.

VARIABLES AND ANALYSIS

This study takes concrete learning process, the important learning element, to be considered for the comparison in manufacturing and services sector organizations of Pakistan. Other two building blocks i.e. supportive learning environment and leadership behavior are being omitted from the study. The reason to omit these two building blocks from the study is to desist the study from being excessively vague and to put the entire focus on concrete learning process and practices solely. The survey consists of the following elements to evaluate the level of concrete learning process and practices in any organization. 1. Experimentation 2. Information collection 3. Analysis 4. Education and training 5. Information transfer All the above elements of concrete learning processes and practices were measured through multiple variables used in the survey. The collection of data was completed by using 29 items that covered all above mentioned five areas of concrete learning processes and practices. Experimentation of new ways of working, experimentation of new products or services, formal way of experiments, and employ prototype for new ideas were the variables used to evaluate the Experimentation dimension. Information collection on competitors, information collection on customers, information collection on economic and social trends, comparison of own performance with competitors, and comparing own performance with best-in-class organizations were the variables used to evaluate the Information collection dimension. Productive conflicts and debates, dissenting views, untried well established perspectives, identification and discussion of key assumptions and ignorance of different views were the variables for the evaluation of the Analysis dimension. Education and training dimension was evaluated by using the variables like; training of new employees, periodic training of experienced employees, training at the time of switching to new position, training at the time of new idea launched, training is valued, and availability of time for education and training. While the last element, Information transfer was evaluated by using the variables like; learning from experts within the organization, learning from experts outside the 128

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012 organization, learning from customers or clients, learning from suppliers, information sharing with experts within the organization, information sharing with experts outside the organization, fast communication of knowledge with key decision makers, and conducting post audit reviews and after action reviews. The arithmetic mean of all the variables was analyzed in this study. Arithmetic mean applied on responses of variables of both sectors i.e. manufacturing and services sectors separately. A diagnostic tool also developed by (Garvin et al., 2008) in their article "Is yours a learning organization" is used. As table 1 shows that it consists of scaled scores of 100. These scaled scores were divided into four quartiles ranging from bottom quartile to top quartile. Median value is clearly identified in it. There are two quartiles i.e. bottom quartile and second quartile below the median and two quartiles i.e. third quartile and top quartile above the median. A range is specified for each quartile. If variable mean fall in bottom and second quartile, it suggests that improvement is required in that area, and, if fall in third or top quartile, it reveals that this is strength of the organization.

V.

DISCUSSION ON RESULTS

Table 1 below shows the benchmark scores for each variable given by David Garvin, whereas Table 2 shows that the first element, experimentation, in the manufacturing sector falls in third quartile, and on the other hand, experimentation in the services sector also lies in third quartile which means experimentation exist in both i.e. manufacturing and services sectors.

Table 1: Benchmark Scores

Variables

Bottom Second Third Top Quartile Quartile Median Quartile Quartile

Experimentation

18-53

54-70

71

72-82

83-100

Information Collection

23-70

71-79

80

81-89

90-100

Analysis

19-56

57-70

71

72-86

87-100

Education and training

26-68

69-79

80

81-89

90-100

Information transfer

34-60

61-70

71

72-84

85-100

Learning processes Composite

31-62

63-73

74

75-82

83-100

Source: (Garvin et al., 2008)

Table 2: Mean Values of Services and Manufacturing

Variables

Manufacturing Sector (Means)

Services Sector (Means)

Experimentation

76.51

72.76

129

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012 Information Collection

79.45

74.93

Analysis

68.43

63.57

Education and training

73.27

67.67

Information transfer

73.16

71.33

Learning processes

74.17

70.05

Second element, information collection, in the manufacturing sector falls in median score, and on the other hand, in services sector it falls in second quartile which proves that there is a need for improving the ways of information collection. Third element, analysis, in the manufacturing sector and in services sector as well falls in second quartile. It demonstrates that this area of concrete learning processes and practices is weak and required to be improved. Fourth element, education and training, in manufacturing sector falls in bottom quartile, and on the other hand, in services sector it falls in second quartile. This clearly indicates that this area is too weak in both manufacturing and services sector and need to be improved a lot. The final element, information transfer, in manufacturing sector falls in third quartile while in services sector it falls in median range. This shows that there are considerable ways of information transfer in both sectors. The composite mean of all elements shows that concrete learning processes and practices in manufacturing sector lies in second quartile while in services sector it lies in median range.

VI.

FACTORS INTERPRETATION

Factor 1: Experimentation means whether the organization involved in experimenting new and existing products and processes. This factor, in both sectors, has gained the high score and lies in third quartile in both sectors. Factor 2: Information collection means whether the organization involved in collecting information on its stakeholders or not. This factor, in both sectors, has gained the average score and falls in median range. Factor 3: Analysis reflects the extent to which an organization is engaged in assessing and discussing different views and assumptions of employees. In both sectors, this factor lies in second quartile which reveals that the level of this factor is satisfactory in the organizations of both sectors. Factor 4: Education and training means whether an organization is concerned to educate and train new and existing employees or not. And whether training and education is valued and time is available for training purpose. This factor falls in third quartile in manufacturing sector while in second quartile in services sector which reveals that training is considered important in manufacturing sector but in services sector, it is at satisfactory level. Factor 5: Information transfer reflects that whether information is flowed at all levels within the organization and outside the organization where necessary. And the organization is involved in providing the forum for learning from the experts (within and outside the organization). The scores gained by both sectors are fall in second quartile which reveals that the extent of this factor is satisfactory in both sectors. 130

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012 Appendix 2 examines that all five factors are very important for evaluating concrete learning practices and processes in any organization. KMO and Bartlett's test of all factors shows that every factor significant for this study. Appendix 3 shows that internal reliability of every component is strong.

VII.

CONCLUSION

It is a long standing discussion that which one of the manufacturing and services sectors is more responsive for concrete learning processes and practices. This study in that respect is the most important contribution in the literature of research as it attempts to numerically analyze the extents of concrete learning in manufacturing and services sectors. It is evidenced by the results that there is a need for improving the processes and practices of learning in both manufacturing and services sectors. These sectors are not yet able to develop the concrete learning processes properly. This study clearly evaluated that both sectors are almost at the same position in mounting concrete learning processes and practices in the organization. The upcoming studies can be conducted in multiple areas of learning organization as the current study is accomplished by creating the base on second building block "concrete learning processes and practices" out of three building blocks. Other two building blocks, supportive learning environment and leadership behavior that reinforces the learning, can also be used for the purpose of comparing manufacturing and services sectors as well as for the comparison of other multiple sectors. The same building block can also be used to compare other sectors like public and private sectors, banking and textile sectors etc.

REFERENCES [1] Ali, Q., Bajwa, S. U., & Shahzad, K. Supportive Learning Environment: A Comparison between Private and Public Sector Organizations of Pakistan. [2] Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 363-375. [3] Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115-125. [4] Bessant, J., & Tsekouras, G. (2001). Developing learning networks. AI & Society, 15(1), 82-98. [5] Darling, M., Parry, C., & Moore, J. (2005). Learning in the thick of it. Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 84. [6] Filiou, D. (2005). Exploration and Exploitation in Inter-Organisational Learning: Motives for Cooperation Being Self-Destructive for Some and Vehicles for Growth for Others Some Evidence from the Biotechnology Sector in the UK between 1991 and 2001. [7] Garvin, D. A. (1985). Building a learning organization. Org Dev & Trng, 6E (Iae), 274. [8] Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109. 131

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012 [9] Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 88-115. [10] Irfan, S., Mohsin, M., & Yousaf, I. (2009). Achieving service quality through its valuable human resources: An empirical study of banking sector of pakistan. World Appl. Sci. J, 7(10), 1222-1230. [11] Kalyar, M. N., Rafi, N., & Ahmad, B. (2012). Organizational learning and organizational commitment: A correlational study in manufacturing context. African Journal of Business Management, 6(9), 3349-3355. [12] Karmarkar, U. (2004). Will you survive the services revolution? Harvard Business Review, 100-107. [13] Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Moore, B., & Wilkinson, F. (1999). Collective learning processes, networking and ‘institutional thickness' in the Cambridge region. Regional Studies, 33(4), 319-332. [14] Lewin, K., & Gold, M. E. (1999). Group decision and social change: American Psychological Association. [15] Malik, M. E., Danish, R. Q., & Munir, Y. Determinants of Learning Organization in Higher Education Institutes of Pakistan: A Correlational Study. [16] Sadler-Smith, E. (2003). Organizational Learning in Smaller Manufacturing Firms David P. Spicer. [17] Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 9(1), 27-47. [18] Senge, P. (1990). The art and practice of the learning organization. The new paradigm in business: Emerging strategies for leadership and organizational change, 126-138. [19] Senge, P. (1994). Building learning organizations. The training and development sourcebook, 379. [20] Senge, P. M. (1993). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization: Book review. [21] Shabbir, S. (2009). SUPPORTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT-A BASIC INGREDIENT OF LEARNING ORGANIZATION. [22]

Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: The key to management innovation. 132

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012 [23] Zahid, S. M., & Ali, I. Learning Orientation, Innovation Capability, and Organizational Performance: Evidence from Banking Sector of Pakistan.

Variables Experimentation of new ways Experimentation of new products Formal way of experiments Prototype for new ideas Information collection on competitors Information collection on customers Information collection on economic and social trends Information collection on technological trends Comparison of own performance with competitors Comparing own performance with best-inclass organizations Productive conflicts and debates Dissenting views during discussion Untried well established perspectives Identification and discussion of key assumptions Ignorance of different views Training of new employees Periodic training of experienced employees

Manufacturing Sector (Mean) 82.85675 77.49925 74.99975 70.7135 76.07125 82.142

Services Sector (Mean) 74.28475 74.64275 73.21275 68.928 74.9995 76.071

75.356

71.78525

79.64125

73.928

83.21375

81.4275

80.35675

71.4285

74.64275 67.192 56.42875

67.1425 64.99975 55.35725

71.07025

69.28525

72.857 72.143 71.0715

61.0715 68.2135 66.7855

133

AP PE ND IX 1: ME AN SC OR ES

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012 Training at the time of switching to new position Training at the time of new idea launched Training is valued Availability of time for education and training Learning from experts within the organization Learning from experts outside the organization Learning from customers or clients Learning from suppliers Information sharing with experts within the organization Information sharing with experts outside the organization Fast communication of knowledge with key decision makers Conducting post audit reviews

69.28575

61.429

74.28575 81.07075

67.50025 71.78525

71.7855

70.3575

71.78525

72.8565

69.28475

71.07125

73.5715 73.9285

69.28525 69.28475

76.4285

71.785

63.571

67.85625

73.92825

71.785

82.85675

76.78475

APPENDIX 2 RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS AND RELIABILITY STATISTICS KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

.816

Approx. Chi-Square df Sig.

Component Matrix

285.555 28 .000

a

Compone nt 5 Learning from experts within the organization Learning from experts outside the organization Learning from customers or clients Learning from suppliers Information sharing with experts within the organization Information sharing with experts outside the organization Fast communication of knowledge with key decision makers Post audit and after action reviews

.759 .761 .840 .693 .811

.758

.546 .556

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 5 components extracted.

134

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.1; Aug 2012

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .827

135

N of Items 4