Building conceptual relations between organizational

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow

Vol. 2 No. 2

Building conceptual relations between organizational learning, knowledge, and memory Andrea Valéria Steil, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Post-Graduate Program in Engineering and Knowledge Management (PGEGC) and of the Department of Psychology, Brazil. Professor. Jane Lucia Silva Santos, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Post-Graduate Program in Engineering and Knowledge Management (PGEGC), Brazil. Doctoral student

Abstract Given the fragmentation in literature concerning organizational memory, coupled with the need for a greater understanding of how learning and knowledge are embedded in organizations and how they are retrieved, this paper aims to analyze some conceptual relations between organizational learning, knowledge and memory. A conceptual framework is developed and is represented by four propositions. Learning processes develop into new organizational knowledge, which is then stored in different repositories. Organizational knowledge, a product of organizational learning, is an integral part of the organizational memory. Therefore it is possible to use the same measures to analyze both institutional knowledge and organizational memory. The feedback and feedforward flow of learning are constituted and constitutive of organizational memory. We believe that a conceptual framework of this nature may be of great help both in building a unified theoretical framework on organizational memory and in conceiving organizational memory systems in real organizations. Keywords: Organizational Learning, Organizational Knowledge, Organizational Memory

1. Introduction Organizational memory has been investigated by different research traditions, notably organizational learning; organizational theory; organizational behavior; organizational communication, system theory; information ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 1


Vol. 2 No. 2

management and decision making; and knowledge management (Stein, 1995; Lehner and Maier, 2000). The understanding that organizations are repositories of experience which can be reused is not new (Bent et al., 1999). Levitt and March (1996, p. 524), for instance, stated “rules, procedures, technologies, beliefs and cultures are conserved through systems of socialization and control” (emphasis added). Organizational memory has been defined by its content, considered to be the sum of all knowledge gathered by the organization; and its processes (coding, storage and applications etc.), the way knowledge is brought to bear on the organization’s present activities (Stein, 1995). The content of organizational memory has, therefore, been equated to organizational knowledge (Mort, 2001); and its processes have been compared to the organization’s ability to learn with experience over time and impart that knowledge to its members (Rao and Argote, 2006). Despite the growing interest and the increase of empiric research (Miner and Mezias, 1996; Ackerman and Halverson, 2000; Santos, Uriona-Maldonado and Macedo dos Santos 2011) on the different processes in organizations it is still necessary to be developed (OS, 2006) a) a greater understanding of how learning and knowledge are embedded and retrieved in organizations and b) a unified theoretical framework regarding the mechanics of organizational memory. The theme has been tangentially analyzed by researchers of different academic and professional background, originating an extensive terminology. Lehner and Maier (2000) have compiled examples of this terminology which comprises terms such as organizational memory, corporative memory, corporative or organizational knowledge base, organizational or corporative knowledge, cooperative memory, social memory, collective or corporative intelligence, corporative genetics and team memory. Ackerman and Halverson (2000) argue that an exacerbated, and yet pragmatic desire to reapply organizational experience has made many a researcher ignore critical functions of the organizational memory to focus exclusively on its improvement. Spender (1996) points to the fragmentation in literature on what concerns organizational memory. He further suggests that it is a result of it being in its infancy, as well as at least one institutionalized “maneuver” in the current knowledge management analysis: the dissociation of the notions of knowledge, learning and memory. Spender (1996) states these concepts are interdependent parts of a single system of ideas of organizations and their knowledge processes, akin to Ohm’s law, where voltage, current and resistance compose a single system of concepts on electricity and can only be understood if related to one another. He ponders also that this triangle of interdependency and interdefinition is the basis on which the remainder of the organizational system must be built. Building on this view of interdependency, this paper aims to analyze the conceptual relations between organizational learning, knowledge and memory. We believe that a conceptual framework of this nature may be of some importance both in building a unified theoretical framework on organizational memory and in conceiving organizational memory systems in real organizations. Based on this objective, the paper follows this structure: next session presents and discusses the organizational learning and knowledge constructs, pointing out some of their contributions to the understanding of the current theoretical body on organizational memory. Subsequently, it gathers conceptual elements of organizational learning in order to build a theoretical system of organizational memory. This contribution is presented as four propositions about the organizational memory systems. The paper also analyzes the implications of these propositions on the conceptual development of the organizational memory systems and organizational practices as it presents the final considerations.

2. Organizational learning, knowledge and memory In spite of being a well established construct, organizational learning still presents ideas in contention, especially in what concerns the nature and location of organizational learning (Easterby-Smith et al., 2000). In this paper we positioned ourselves with a growing group of researchers who understand organizational learning as a process of changing individual and group thoughts, and action, which integrates to the institutions of the organizations. “When individual and group learning becomes institutionalized, organizational learning occurs and knowledge is embedded in non-human repositories such as routines, systems, structures, culture, and strategy […]” (Vera and Crossan, 2005, p. 123). Studies on organizational learning contribute to organizational memory, especially in what regards the understanding of how organizations embed knowledge gained from their experience in their institutions (Cross and Baird, 2000). Research in the field of organizational learning show that the result of the learning process is the creation of knowledge at the individual, group, and organizational levels (Bertels and Savage, 1998); and this process depends on psychological, social (Crossan et al., 1999) and political (Lawrence et al., 2005) factors. Thus, organizational learning influences the creation of new knowledge both in the present and in the future (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Anderson and Sun, 2010). This knowledge may be stored in the organizational memory, from where it can be retrieved (Anderson and Sun, 2010) and reused. If on the one hand the study of ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 2


Vol. 2 No. 2

organizational learning helps us understand the formation and renewal of organizational memory, on the other hand studies on organizational memory may contribute to the understanding of the organizational learning process. As Weick (1979, p. 206) has posited “if an organization is to learn anything then the distribution of its memory, the accuracy of that memory, and the conditions under which that memory is treated as a constraint become crucial characteristics of organizing”. For those reasons, researchers have seen both concepts as intimately connected (Weick, 1979; Spender, 1996; Anderson and Sun, 2010). Henceforth, it is possible to state that an organization’s ability to learn influences the formation of its memory, which in turn may impel new learning processes in an interactive cycle. Organizational knowledge construct has been used to the development of theories that try to explain a company’s competitive edge based on its knowledge assets (Cook and Brown, 1999). Besides its straightforward use, organizational knowledge construct is “wrapped up” in related constructs as invisible assets, intangible resources, strategic assets, absorptive capacity, organizational memory, capabilities and abilities (Venzin et al., 1998). In the scope of this paper, knowledge is defined as “information that is relevant, actionable, and based at least partially on experience. Knowledge is a subset of information; it is subjective; it is linked to meaningful behavior; and it has tacit elements born of experience” (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998, p. 113). The contribution of organizational knowledge has become paramount to the understanding of organizational memory. For instance, Fahey and Prusak (1998) treat knowledge as an organizational phenomenon, an important aspect to define memory in the organizational level. Nevo and Wand (2005) also point that the effective sharing and application of organizational knowledge greatly depends on the organization’s ability to create and manage its collective memory. Complementarily, Nilakanta et al. (2006) equate organizational knowledge to institutional memory. A growing number of researchers have tried to understand the ways in which knowledge is stored and used in organizations. The system that comprehends these methods for storing organizational knowledge for future use has been widely defined as organizational memory (Huber, 1991; Stein and Zwass, 1995; Nevo and Wand, 2005; Lehner and Maier, 2000), or organizational memory system (Olivera, 2000). Table 1 presents a nonexhaustive list of organizational memory definitions. As seen on Table 1, some definitions focus mostly on the organization’s ability to store information from past experiences (Arrow, 1962; Walsh and Ungson, 1991; Anderson and Sun, 2010). Others bring up the capacity that organizational memory has for storing, retrieving and preserving organizational knowledge (Arrow, 1962; Kim, 1993; Megill, 1997; Papoutsakis, 2009), thus emphasizing its content. Stein’s (1995) definition, however, relates organizational memory with organizational effectiveness. Other authors emphasize technological repositories (Watson, 1996), any “device” (Lehner and Maier, 2000); while others refer to shared beliefs, behavioral routines or physical artifacts (Moormann and Miner, 1997) as being the components of organizational memory. Understanding that organizational knowledge is stored and preserved in memory in different repositories has become pivotal for organizational memory studies. A significant portion of the organizational memory studies focus mainly on identifying the different forms of storing and preserving organizational knowledge. Table 2 surmises the main repositories found in literature. As seen on Table 2, the different facilities for storing and preserving organizational knowledge show a variety of cognitive, organizational and technological structures. Each of these storage facilities can be analyzed as an organizational memory system. It is worth mentioning that the literature focusing on the role of information systems as a repository is growing in different disciplines. For instance, besides information systems (e.g. Stein and Zwass, 1995), computer-based memory systems (e.g. Olivera, 2000), organizational memory information system (e.g. Wijnhoven, 1999), knowledge management systems or knowledge based systems (e.g. Cardenas and Spinola, 2010) among others, have been used to describe technological artifacts for storing and preserving organizational knowledge. Empirical studies on the potential relevance of different knowledge repositories are also on the rise. For instance, Dunham and Burt (2011) studied “people” as repositories and found that older workers are considered repositories of organizational memory and suitable mentors by organizational members. Cacciatori (2008) shows that "boundary objects" such as workbooks for costs calculation are central mechanisms through which knowledge is preserved and adapted in project environments. Molly and Samer (2005) pointed that the use of Electronic Networks contributes to bind geographically dispersed members of a collectivity and to help them solving problems in a specific practice. In addition, empirical investigations indicate that repositories of memory contribute to developing innovative products (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997), rebuilding an organization ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 3


Vol. 2 No. 2

(Campbell-Kelly, 1996), knowledge transferring during business succession (Bracci and Vagnoni, 2011), and knowledge reusing from previous experiences (Markus, 2001). Hence, understanding how the memory of an organization is built-up and what factors relate to it may help in uncovering how organizations create, store, employ and reuse organizational knowledge. Thus, the study of organizational learning can provide the necessary support for such endeavor.

3. Conceptual relations between organizational learning, knowledge and memory The existing frameworks for organizational memory (i.e. Walsh and Ungson, 1991; Lehner and Maier, 2000; Olivera, 2000) may lead one to believe that organizational knowledge “exists” as an entity detached from the processes and environment in which it was created, stored and used. By accepting Spender’s (1996) premise that organizational knowledge, learning and memory are interdependent concepts which can only be understood when related to one another, new elements must be brought together in order to conceive a comprehensive theoretical system on organizational memory. Laszlo and Krippner (1998, p. 7) define a theoretical system as “a complex of concepts, suppositions and propositions having both logical integration and empirical reference”, which can be used to describe and analyze phenomena in the observable world. Argyris and Schön (1978, p.19) indirectly point to the interrelation between organizational knowledge, learning and memory when they state “…In order for organizational learning to occur, learning agents' discoveries, inventions and evaluations must be embedded in organizational memory” (emphasis added). Table 3 presented the learning processes, their agents and results in terms of changes in the state of knowledge; all of which are integral to the 4I framework of organizational learning (Crossan et al., 1999), that has generated a wide field of research in the areas of organizational learning and knowledge (Bapuji and Crossan, 2004; Bontis et al., 2002, Crossan and Berdrow, 2003; Dutta and Crossan, 2005, Lawrence et al., 2005). In the 4I framework, intuition involves the presence and recognition of patterns and/or possibilities in the preconscious level of the individual (Crossan et al., 1999). This process affects behavior. In this context, learning means identifying and recognizing similarities and differences between patterns and possibilities. Crossan et al. (1999), defines interpretation as the act of verbalizing an insight, idea or knowledge to oneself and/or a group of people. That means transferring preconscious elements to consciousness through the employment of language. Language enables the understanding of intuitive patterns, reinforcing learning. Integration is the process of building shared comprehension between individuals and developing a coordinated action through mutual adjustment. Finally, institutionalization is the process that guarantees that routine actions will take place. Institutionalization is the concept which describes the process of incorporating layers of knowledge to organizational systems, structures, strategies, routines and practices. These four learning processes (intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing) connect the three levels of analysis (Crossan et al., 2011). The examples of possible repositories for the created knowledge have been added to this paper in order to compose an analytic framework for the learning/knowledge/memory triangle, answering to the challenge issued by Spender (1996). Figure 1 shows the conceptual structure of the relationship between organizational learning, knowledge and memory. Based on the analysis of these constructs we can infer the propositions in contrast with the conceptual framework. Each organizational process takes place with one or more learning agents in the organization and results in (or produces) at least one change in the knowledge states of these agents (Table 3). Changing the states of knowledge means new knowledge (Bertels and Savage, 1998). This knowledge created by organizational learning processes is stored in at least one of the possible repositories, depending on the learning agent and the kind of knowledge created. Thus we present the first proposition of this paper: Proposition 1 (P1): Knowledge processes develop new organizational knowledge which is in turn stored in repositories associated to the learning agent. The process of institutionalizing learning is a direct link between preserving organizational knowledge and the development of memory. It is through the institutionalization of the individual and group’s learning that knowledge is embedded to systems, structures, routines, practices and rules of the institution (Bontis et al., 2002). According to Lawrence et al. (2001, p. 627), The outcome of an instance of institutionalization is an institutionalized practice, rule, technology, or combination of those in the form of a regime or dominant rhetoric. At this point the institution has reached the stage of legitimation, and the practices are diffused widely among most participating members. Therefore, identifying the occurrence of organizational learning can be accomplished by analyzing institutionalized changes in the organizational level. The cognitive structures and behavioral patterns caused by ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 4


Vol. 2 No. 2

institutionalization endure despite personnel turnover (Knight, 2002). In that sense, organizational memory can mitigate the impact of personnel turnover in the organization. Incorporating pieces of individual knowledge into the organizational knowledge capital (Inkpen, 1996) is based on the premise that organizations can be represented by the patterns of interaction between individuals that tend to persist even after one of those individuals has left the organization (Ranson et al., 1980). This knowledge brought by the institutionalization process is a diffused and legitimated (Lawrence et al., 2001) knowledge, being structured, and accessible to people other than the individuals originating it (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998). In this context, institutionalized knowledge is by definition a part of the organizational memory. If institutionalized knowledge, given its characteristics, belongs to organizational memory, then the same instruments (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991) used to measure learning in the organizational level can be applied to measure organizational memory. Proposition 2 (P2): The same instruments used to measure institutionalization of learning can be used to measure organizational memory. In his theory of change, Arrow (1962) had already defined memory as a system capable of storing events that have been perceived or experienced beyond the duration of the actual event, to be retrieved later in time. He viewed the acquisition of knowledge as a product of experience, also known as process of learning. During the process of organizational learning, there are two parallel learning flows: a) assimilation flows of new learning, named feedforward (Crossan et al., 1999); and b) flows of application of what has been learned, named feedback (Crossan et al., 1999). Feedforward can be described as the processes in which the flow of new ideas and actions go from the individual to the organization (Crossan et al., 1999). That takes place when the result of this process is institutionalized in the form of non-human elements such as structures, systems, products, processes, rules, routines, procedures, strategy, culture among others (Bontis et al., 2002; Crossan, et al., 2011). The feedback learning flow represents the impact of organizational knowledge on the actions and future decision making process of the organizational members (Crossan et al., 1999; Bontis, 1999). This impact occurs because the knowledge that reached the institutionalization stage in the organizational level is embedded to systems, structures, practices and rules of the institution (Bontis, Crossan and Hulland, 2002). This knowledge influences how groups maintain their shared understanding, how people perceive their environment, develop insights, make decisions and solve problems (Lehner and Maier, 2000). Considering the presented concepts, the feedforward learning flow takes place when the organization acquires new knowledge (Crossan et al., 1999; Crossan, et al., 2011), that is, incorporates the new knowledge created by the individuals in systems, routines, procedures or any other organizational element. This learning process enables individual learning to grow to a group or organizational level, feeding the organizational memory. The feedback learning flow takes place when individuals and groups make use of what has already been learned (Crossan et al., 1999; Crossan, et al., 2011) to come up with new learning processes in the individual or group levels. Therefore, previously generated knowledge that has been stored and made available in the organizational memory can be applied to foster new learning processes (feedforward). Hence we propose: Proposition 3 (P3): Flows of acquisition of new learning (feedforward) influence and are influenced by the characteristics of the organizational memory. Proposition 4 (P4): The characteristics of the organizational memory influence the flow of application of what has already been learned (feedback), that is, influence future learning.

4. Conclusions and implications for future research According to what was demonstrated, the constructs of organizational learning and knowledge are interconnected by an interactive process of mutual reinforcement (Vera and Crossan, 2005) and relate directly to organizational memory (Spender, 1996). Organizational learning is the process through which organizational knowledge is created, developed and institutionalized (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2005). This knowledge in turn directs the future activities of individuals and groups within the organization (Vera and Crossan, 2005). Organizational knowledge assets influence how groups maintain their shared understanding and how individuals interpret their environment, develop new insights, make decisions and solve problems (Crossan et al., 1999) in this process of influence and transmission of institutionalized knowledge to the members of the organization (Maier and Lehner, 2000). Some theoretical and methodological implications of the analyses in this paper are considered. Firstly, we added propositions to the conceptual categories of organizational memory enabling people to verify how organizational memory is established, stored, employed and influenced by organizational learning processes. This analytical dimension sets the stage for longitudinal studies concerning different mechanisms of organizational memory: growth; stagnation; relation of memory with other constructs such as organizational ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 5


Vol. 2 No. 2

performance, organizational learning, and decision making. Secondly, the analysis and the propositions also offer input to empirical research, especially on what regards the understanding of the reason behind the difference in configuration and effectiveness perceived on organizational memory systems. From the propositions presented here, it is suggested that the characteristics of organizational memory systems are closely related to that organization’s dynamics of learning, especially to the processes of learning institutionalization. Given the proposed relation between learning institutionalization and organizational memory (both in human and non-human repositories), the methods for formalizing and representing knowledge aiming at its retrieval, such as those developed by knowledge engineering (Schreiber et al., 2002), are growing in importance. To those who use a computational approach to organizational memory (Zack, 1999), this paper reiterates that the knowledge which can be structured on databases is but a fraction of the organizational knowledge (Swan and Scarbrough, 2001). Understanding the dynamic relation among organizational learning, knowledge and memory may, therefore, stimulate knowledge engineering to develop models which also consider the organizational knowledge stored on different facilities, as the routines and rules of production, people, the organizational culture and structure. Finally, we hope this paper will help the understanding of the terminology employed to describe and prescribe the processes of development and use of experiential knowledge in organizations, as well as organizational memory systems. By identifying the interdependency of organizational learning, knowledge and memory, we also hope that this paper will prompt empirical studies in these fields of knowledge.

Acknowledgements The second author appreciates the support received from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES [Coordination of the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel], by means of Capes/PROF scholarship. Andrea Valéria Steil Professor Post-Graduate Program in Engineering and Knowledge Management (PGEGC) and of the Department of Psychology, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Centro Tecnológico - PPEGC - Cx Postal 476 - CEP 88049-900, Trindade, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil Email: [email protected] / [email protected] Phone: +55 048 3721 7129

Jane Lucia Silva Santos* Doctoral Student Post-Graduate Program in Engineering and Knowledge Management (PGEGC), Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Centro Tecnológico - PPEGC - Cx Postal 476 - CEP 88049900, Trindade, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil Email: [email protected] / [email protected] Phone: +55 048 9992 7031

References               

Ackerman, M.S. and Halverson, C.A. (2000). Reexamining organizational memory, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 Issue 1, pp. 59-64. Anderson, M.H. and Sun, P.Y.T. (2010). What have scholars retrieved from Walsh and Ungson (1991)? A citation context study, Management Learning, Vol. 41 Issue 2, pp. 131–145. Argote, L. (1999). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge, New York, Springer. Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational Learning: a theory of action perspective, Reading, Addison-Wesley. Arrow, K.J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.29 Issue 3, pp.155-173. Bent, J. van der, Paauwe, J. and Williams, A.R.T. (1999). Organizational learning: an exploration of organizational memory and its role in organizational change processes, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 Issue 5, pp. 377-404. Bertels, T. and Savage, C.M. (1998). Tough questions on knowledge management, In Krogh, G.V., Roos, J. and Keine, D., Knowing in Firms. Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge. Sage, London, pp. 7-25. Bontis, N., Crossan, M. and Hulland, J. (2002). Managing organizational learning systems by aligning stocks and flows, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39, Issue 4, pp. 437-469. Bracci, E. and Vagnoni, E. (2011). Understanding small family business succession in a knowledge management perspective, The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX Issue 1, pp. 7-36. Cacciatori, E. (2008). Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based ﬁrms, Research Policy, Vol. 37, pp. 1591–1601. Campbell-Kelly, M. (1996). Information technology and organizational change in the British census, 1801–1911, Information Systems Research, Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 22–36. Cardenas, J.M. and Spinola, M. (2010). Knowledge or memory: what is the right choice about information technology concerns? Technology Management for Global Economic Growth (PICMET) Proceedings of PICMET '10, pp.1-4. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 Issue 1, pp. 128-152. Cook, S. D. N., and Yanow, D. (1996). Culture and organizational learning, In Cohen, M. D. and Sproull, L. S. (Eds.), Organizational Learning, Sage, CA, pp. 430-441. Cook, S.D.N and Brown, J.S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing, Organization Science, Vol. 10, pp. 381-400.

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 6

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow                                       

Vol. 2 No. 2

Cross, R. and Baird, L. (2000). Technology is not enough: improving performance by building organizational memory, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 Issue 3, pp. 69-78. Crossan, M., Lane, H.W. and White, R.E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution, Journal of Management Review, Vol. 24 Issue 3, pp. 522-537. Crossan, M.; Maurer, C.C. and White, R. (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational learning? Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 Issue. 3, pp. 446–460. Dunham, A.H. and Burt, C.D.B. (2011). Organizational memory and empowerment, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Issue. 5, pp.851- 868. Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. (2005). Introduction: watersheds of organizational learning and knowledge management, In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell, Malden, pp.1-15. Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., and Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning: debates past, present and future, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 Issue 6, pp. 783-796. Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management, California Management Review, Vol. 40 Issue 3, pp. 265-276. Hackbarth, G. and Grover, V. (1999). The knowledge repository: Organizational memory information systems, Information Systems Management, Vol. 16 Issue 3, pp. 21-30. Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 716-749. Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn, In Nystrom, C. and Starbuck, W. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Design, Oxford, London. Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and literature, Organization Science, Vol. 2, pp. 88-115. Inkpen, A.C. (1996). Creating knowledge through collaboration, California Management Review, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p. 123-140. Kim, D.H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p. 37-50. Knight, L. (2002). Network learning: exploring learning by interorganizational networks, Human Relations, Vol. 55 Issue 4, pp. 427454. Laszlo, A. and Krippner, S. (1998). Systems theories: their origins, foundations, and development, In Jordan, J.S. (Ed.), Systems Theories and a Priori Aspects of Perception, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 47-74. Lawrence, T.B., Mauws, M.K., Dyck, B., and Kleysen, R.F. (2005). The politics of organizational learning: integrating power into the 4I framework, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 Issue 1, pp. 180-191. Lawrence, T.B., Winn, M.I. and Jennings, P.D. (2001). The temporal dynamics of institutionalization, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 Issue 4, pp. 624-644. Lehner, F. and Maier, R.K. (2000). How can organizational memory theories contribute to organizational memory systems?, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 2 Issues 3-4, pp. 277-298. Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 Issue 3, pp. 112-132. Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1996). Organizational learning, In Cohen, M.D. and Sproull, L.S. (Eds.), Organizational Learning, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 516-540. Markus, M.L. (2001). Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 Issue 1, pp. 57-93. Miner, A.S. and Mezias, S.J. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: pasts and futures of organizational learning research, Organization Science, Vol. 7, p. 88-99. Moormann, C. and Miner, A.S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new products performance and creativity, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp. 91-106. Molly, M.W. and Samer, F. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 Issue 1, pp. 35-57. Mort, J. (2001). Nature, value, and pursuit of reliable corporate knowledge, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 Issue 3, pp. 222-230. Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Nevo, D. and Wand, Y. (2005). Organizational memory information systems: a transactive memory approach, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 39, pp. 549-562. Nilakanta, S., Miller, L.L. and Zhu, D. (2006). Organizational memory management: technological and research issues, Journal of Database Management, Vol. 17 Issue 1, pp. 85-94. Olivera, F. (2000). Memory systems in organizations: an empirical investigation of mechanisms for knowledge collection, storage and access”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 Issue 6, pp. 811-832. OS (2006). Special issue on Organizational Memory: the dynamics of organizational remembering and forgetting, Organization Studies, Vol. 27 Issue 8, pp. 1223-1224. Papoutsakis, H. (2009). Organizational knowledge sharing networks, In Girard, J.(Ed.), Building Organizational Memories: Will You Know What You Knew?, IGI Global Books, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 81-98. Pedhazur, E.J. and Shmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Ranson, S., Hinings, B. and Greenwood, R. (1980). The structuring of organizational structures, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25 Issue 1, pp. 1-15. Rao, R.D. and Argote, L. (2006). Organizational learning and forgetting: the effects of turnover and structure, European Management Review, Vol. 3 Issue 2, pp. 77-85. Santos, J.L.S., Uriona-Maldonado, M., and Macedo dos Santos, R.N. (2011). Mapeamento das Publicações Acadêmico-Científicas sobre Memória Organizacional”, Anais do Encontro Nacional da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. Schatzki, T.R. (2006). On organizations as they happen, Organization Studies, Vol. 27 Issue 12, p. 1863-1873. Schreiber, G., Akkermans, H., Anjewierden, A., de Hoog, R., Shadbolt, N., Van de Velde,. W. and Wielinga, B. (2002). Knowledge engineering and management: the commonKADS methodology, MIT Press, Massachusetts. Spender, J.C. (1996). Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in search of a theory, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 9 Issue 1, pp. 63-78. Starbuck, W.H. (1992). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 Issue 6, pp. 713-738.

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 7

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow           

Vol. 2 No. 2

Stein, E.W. (1995). Organizational memory: review of concepts and recommendations for management, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 15 Issue 2, pp. 17-32. Stein, E.W. and Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing organizational memory with information systems, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 Issue 2, pp. 85-117. Swan, J and Scarbrough, H. (2001). Knowledge management: concepts and controversies, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 Issue 7, pp. 913–921, 2001. Venzin, M., Krogh, G V. and Roos, J. (1998). Future research in knowledge management. In Krogh, G.V., Roos, J. and Kleine, D., Knowing in Firms. Understanding, managing and measuring knowledge, Sage, London, pp. 26-66. Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2005). Organizational learning and knowledge management: toward an integrative framework, In EasterbySmith, M. and Lyles, M. (eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell, Malden, pp. 122-141. Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991). Organizational memory, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 Issue 1, pp. 57-90. Watson, R.T. (1996). Data Management, an Organizational Perspective, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Wijnhoven, F. (1999). Development Scenarios for Organizational Memory Information Systems, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 16 Issue 1, pp. 121-146. Weick, K.E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Yates, J. (1990). For the record: the embodiment of organizational memory, 1850–1920, Business and Economic History, Vol. 19 Issue 1, pp. 172–82. Zack, M.H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40, Issue 4, pp. 45-58, 1999.

Tables and Figures Authors

Organizational memory definitions

Arrow (1962)

A system capable of storing events that have been perceived or experienced beyond the duration of the actual event, to be retrieved later in time.

Hedberg (1981)

Organizational memory establishes the cognitive structures of information processing and theory of action for the whole organization.

Walsh and Ungson (1991)

Stored information about the past of an organization.

Stein (1995)

Is the means by which knowledge from the past is brought to bear on present activities, thus resulting in higher or lower levels of organizational effectiveness. Understood in the form of a comprehensive and corporate-wide data(base) concept that is increasingly enhanced by multimedia and network technologies (e.g. imaging, archive and document management systems).

Watson (1996)

Moormann and Miner (1997)

Collective beliefs acquired through experience. Shared beliefs, behavioral routines, or physical artifacts that vary in their content, level, dispersion, and accessibility.

Ackerman (2000)

Is the collection of historical corporate knowledge that is employed for current use through appropriate methods of gathering, organizing, refining, and disseminating the stored information and knowledge.

and

Halverson

Lehner and Maier (2000)

System capable of storing things perceived, experienced or self-constructed beyond the duration of actual occurrence, and of retrieving them at a later point in time.

Schatzki (2006) Papoutsakis (2009)

Memory means practice. Memory as a property of a practice or organization. Is a term used to describe the preservation of organizational knowledge.

Anderson and Sun (2010)

Is the set of stored information of decision stimuli (i.e. problems encountered) and responses (i.e. organization's response to problems).

Table 1: Organizational memory definitions Facilities Authors Routines and procedures

Nelson and Winter (1982); Walsh and Ungson (1991); Starbuck (1992); Levitt and March (1996); Moorman and Miner (1997)

People

Simon (1991); Starbuck (1992); Levitt and March (1996); Dunham and Burt (2011)

Organizational culture

Walsh and Ungson (1991); Starbuck (1992); Cook and Yanov (1993); Levitt and March (1996); Moorman and Miner (1997)

Organizational structure

Walsh and Ungson (1991); Levitt and March (1996); Moorman and Miner (1997)

Physical structure environment Products

of

the

work

Walsh and Ungson (1991); Levitt and March (1996); Moorman and Miner (1997) Hargadon e Sutton (1997); Argote (1999); Olivera (2000)

Files

Yates (1990); Campbell-Kelly (1996); Nilakanta et al. (2006)

Information systems

Huber (1991); Starbuck (1992); Stein e Zwass (1995); Olivera (2000)

Social networks

Olivera (2000)

Table 2: Main repositories for storage and preservation of organizational knowledge found in academic literature

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 8

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow OL Processes

Intuition

F e e d b a c k

F e e d f o r w a r d

Interpre-tation

Integration

Institutionalization

Vol. 2 No. 2

Result in terms of changes in the state of knowledge Change in the state of individual knowledge.

Examples of possible repositories

People Groups

Change in the state of group knowledge.

People Social network Group

Groups Organization

Change in the state of group knowledge and action.

People Social network Group

Organization

Storing individual and group knowledge as an organizational asset.

People Social network Group Routines Rules and procedures Norms Structure IT systems

Description

Agent

Preconscious recognition of patterns and/or possibilities based on personal experience. Explanation of an insight or idea to oneself or others through language.

People

Development of a shared comprehension and coordination of action through mutual adjustment. Process that guarantees that routine actions will take place.

People

Table 3: Relation between Organizational Learning Processes (OL) and their results in terms of knowledge with their possible repositories. Source: Based on Crossan et al. (1999) and Crossan and Berdrow (2003)

Figure 1: Conceptual relations between organizational learning, knowledge and memory.

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 9