Organizational learning: a review of some literatures

Organization Studies, Summer, 1993 by Mark Dodgson

Stinchcombe, A. 1990 Information and organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Teece, D., G. Pisano, and A. Schuen 1990 'Firm capabilities, resources, and the concept of strategy'. CCC Working Paper No 90-8, University of Berkeley, Berkeley.

Twiss, B. 1986 Managing technological innovation, 3rd edn. London: Pitman. Introduction

Conceptions of organizational learning are ubiquitous. Since Weber, organizational theory has addressed the issue, and as the recent (1991) special edition of Organization Science on 'Organizational Learning' shows, it remains a current concern. The lengthy history of the study of organizational learning is matched by the range of academic disciplines studying it. For example, economic historians have examined the importance of learning in the development of new industries and technologies (Rosenberg 1976), and of the development of formal Research and Development (R&D) as institutionalized learning mechanisms (Mowery 1981). Learning is argued by industrial economists to affect productivity (Arrow 1962), and industrial structures (Dosi 1988). Learning within firms has been a feature of the theory of the firm since Cyert and March (1963), and learning plays a central role in Teece et al.'s (1990) 'dynamic capabilities' theory of strategic management. The relationship between learning and innovation is increasingly examined at a strategic management level (Dodgson 1991a; Loveridge and Pitt 1990) and at a tactical management level concerned with new product introduction (Imai et al. 1985; Maidique and Zirger 1985). The idea of 'learning curves' is widely used in management education, and by commercial management consultants such as the Boston Consultancy Group.

A number of reasons can be suggested why the study of organizational learning is currently so fashionable. First, the concept of the 'learning organization' is gaining currency amongst large organizations as they attempt to develop structures and systems which are more adaptable and responsive to change. This development has been described and influenced by the work of a number of management analysts, such as Peters and Waterman (1982), Kanter (1989) and Senge (1990). It is increasingly appreciated that learning is a key to competitiveness (Garratt 1987). Second, and partly related, is the profound influence that rapid technological change is having on organizations. The turbulence engendered by technological change in products, processes and organization increases the uncertainties facing firms and the conflicts within them. The complexity of the new product development process (Rothwell 1992), and shortening product life-cycles, the transformation of production processes towards, for example, 'lean production' (Womack et al. 1990), and the growing use of computer-assisted organizational innovations such as Just-in-Time delivery systems and Materials Requirement Planning increases the need for firms to learn to do things in new, and often radically different, ways.

A third reason can also be suggested. The concept of 'learning' has a broad analytical value. This is shown in the breadth of academic disciplines using it. Contemporarily, however, this has increased in value, as on the one hand, normative approaches, such as those found in much of the management literature on the subject, seek to find a new language to deal with the changed circumstances facing firms. On the other hand, some academic analysis of organizations, for example, in economics, attempts to progress beyond existing static views of organizations as 'bundles of resources'. Learning is a dynamic concept, and its use in theory emphasizes the continually changing nature of organizations. Furthermore, it is an integrative concept that can unify various levels of analysis: individual, group, corporate, which is particularly helpful in reviewing the cooperative and community nature of organizations. An interdisciplinary approach to learning avoids the rather introspective and parochial views seen in some of the literature on the subject (seen, for example, in the recent edition of Organization Science).

What is Organizational Learning?

There is rarely agreement within disciplines as to what learning is, and how it occurs (Fiol and Lyles 1985), let alone agreement between disciplines. Economists tend to view learning either as simple quantifiable improvements in activities, or as some form of abstract and vaguely-defined positive outcome. The management and business literature often equates learning with sustainable comparative competitive efficiency, and the innovation literature usually sees learning as promoting comparative innovative efficiency. These various literatures tend to examine the outcomes of learning, rather than delve into what learning actually is and how these outcomes are achieved. In contrast, it is a major concern of organization theory and psychology to examine the processes of learning. Learning, in the sense used here, relates to firms, and encompasses both processes and outcomes. It can be described as the ways firms build, supplement and organize knowledge and routines around their activities and within their cultures, and adapt and develop organizational efficiency by improving the use of the broad skills of their workforces. This broad definition incorporates a number of assumptions: