The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-5626.htm

Workplace
Workplace learning: the roles of learning
knowledge accessibility and
management
347
Jessica Li, Gary Brake, Angeline Champion, Tony Fuller,
Sandy Gabel and Lori Hatcher-Busch Received 28 July 2008
University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA Revised 17 October 2008
Accepted 10 December 2008

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how knowledge management systems have been
used by the studied organizations to improve knowledge accessibility and knowledge sharing in order
to increase workplace learning.
Design/methodology/approach – The study relies on a qualitative multisite case study method.
Data were obtained from five organizations at a southern state in the USA. Multiple interviews, onsite
observation, and documentation analyses were conducted at each studied organization. Data analysis
used open coding and thematic analysis. Results were triangulated based on multiple data sources.
Findings – The findings revealed that the learning environment of an organization is important for
workplace learning. All studied organizations share a need for a conversion of tacit to explicit
knowledge in order to facilitate effective informal learning in the workplace. This research concludes
that engineering the learning environment through effective knowledge management should be a
cohesive effort of the entire organization and demands congruent support from all levels of the
organization.
Originality/value – The study expands the understanding of issues related to workplace learning
through knowledge accessibility in both business and academic settings. To improve workplace
learning, one should not just stipulate technology interventions; other factors, such as the
organization’s design, work design, and the culture/vision of the organization, all play important roles
in the creation of a learning organization that will induce informal learning in the workplace.
Keywords Workplace learning, Knowledge management, Tacit knowledge, United States of America
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Sir Francis Bacon once said, “Knowledge is power”. In today’s dynamic environment, it
can be argued that knowledge is power only if it can be accessed and learned to
enhance individual and/or organization performance. Knowledge is taken place of
capital as the driving force in organizations. The most valuable assets for the
twenty-first century are knowledge workers and their productivity (Drucker, 1999).
Globalization and workforce diversity have changed the dynamics of today’s
workforce. The rules of traditional knowledge sharing, learning, and training in
organizations are changing (Sauve, 2007). It is important to examine the impact of
change on current knowledge management and workplace learning practices of
organizations and investigate implications from both theoretical and practical Journal of Workplace Learning
Vol. 21 No. 4, 2009
perspectives. pp. 347-364
Recent business literature has emphasized the creation of the “learning q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1366-5626
organization”, an environment in which an organization’s success is dependent on DOI 10.1108/13665620910954238
JWL its ability to continually adapt and learn (Senge, 1990). The field of strategic
21,4 management argues that learning is a “dynamic capability”, an internal process unique
to the organization that differentiates a firm from its competitors. It is proffered that if
organizations are able to learn better than other organizations in the same industry,
then the learning organization will outperform the others (Teece et al., 1997).
As learning takes center stage, interest in workplace learning has also intensified
348 (Billett, 2002; Illeris, 2003). The work setting has long been an important place for
adults to learn. In today’s knowledge-driven economy, continuous learning at the
workplace becomes a necessity. Learning and working have become intertwined
(Streumer, 2006) and the context and content of learning have become increasingly
important.
It is because of the increased focus on learning in the workplace that the authors
seek to examine the factors that contribute to successful learning transfer in
organizations. Specifically, this paper examines how knowledge management systems
have been used by the studied organizations to improve knowledge accessibility and
knowledge sharing in order to increase workplace learning.

Theoretical context
Workplace learning
Workplace learning, which stems from the field of educational research focuses on the
improvement of conditions and practices of learning and instruction in work settings
(Engestrom and Kerosuo, 2007). Workplace learning can often be categorized as formal
learning and informal learning (Watkins, 1995). Formal learning is institutionally
sponsored learning and informal learning is any learning that takes place outside of a
classroom (including online courses) setting (Berg and Chyung, 2008).
Studies have shown that informal learning contributes to the majority of the
learning that takes place on the job. Marsick and Watkins (1990) reported that about 80
percent of what employees learn came from applying personal strategies, such as
questioning, listening, observing, reading and reflecting on their work environment.
Sorohan (1993) estimated that close to 90 percent of workplace learning is acquired
through informal means. Informal learning has attracted considerable attention in the
literature (Skule, 2004). For researchers who are interested in improving individual and
organizational performance, it is helpful to study how one might be able to support
informal learning in the workplace.
The nature of informal learning has promoted researchers to study factors that
influence informal learning in the workplace. A review of current literature discovered
that recent studies focused mainly on factors related to the individual learner, the
context of the organization, or both. Berg and Chyung (2008) discovered that interest in
the current field (of the individual learner) and computer access (of learning support
system) were the top two factors affecting employee engagement in informal learning.
In a study on teachers’ engagement in informal learning, Lohman (2006) suggested that
to promote informing learning in the workplace, organizations should design
employees’ work areas and schedules to allow opportunity and time for collegial
integration and sharing. In addition, they should ensure that employees have access to
adequate computer technology and the Internet, which would enable access to needed
information in a timely manner. The importance of sufficient support was stressed by
Eraut (2004) because it would increase one’s commitment and confidence in learning.
Management support and an organizational culture that is committed to learning are Workplace
important in creating organizational factors that positively influence informal learning learning
(Ellinger, 2005; Eraut, 2004).

Organizational impact
Management support and organizational culture are among two of the most important
factors that positively influence informal learning in the workplace (Berg and Chyung, 349
2008; Ellinger, 2005; Eraut, 2004; Lohman, 2006). In 2001, McDermott and O’Dell
identified five large firms from a sample of 40 that were recognized for their ability to
share knowledge as a part of their corporate culture. After conducting interviews with
each of these firms, they determined that corporate culture plays a large part in the
success of knowledge management and knowledge sharing. The researchers found
that “companies that successfully implement knowledge management do not try to
change their culture to fit their knowledge management approach. [Instead], they build
their knowledge management approach to fit their culture” (McDermott and O’Dell,
2001, p. 79). More recently, Frattali (2007) discussed the ideals of a specific learning
organization, McCormick & Company. At McCormick, people at all levels are
encouraged to exchange knowledge and expertise. Beyond a basic exchange of ideas,
McCormick has developed a culture of the “teaching organization”. In this model, not
only are there corporate learning professionals, but also all of their leaders are teachers
in knowledge sharing that promotes continuous learning in the workplace.
Knowledge management (KM) is “a conscious strategy of getting the right
knowledge to the right people at the right time and helping people share and put
information into action in ways that strive to improve organizational performance”
(O’Dell and Grayson, 1998, p. 6). The goal of KM is to enhance organizational
performance by explicitly designing and implementing systems, structures and
cultures to improve the creation, sharing and use of knowledge that is critical for
decision making and performance improvement (Damodaran and Olphert, 2000).
Knowledge management is a business practice as well as a field of academic study.
Working in concert with an organizational learning culture, KM can positively
influence the transfer of learning in the workplace. Not all organizations, however,
have a culture that supports organizational learning. For example, Retna and Ng (2006)
stated, “While the school has a culture where learning is done willingly rather than by
coercion, learning on a collective basis was not forthcoming. The idea and practice of
sharing was not prevalent among staff and students” (p. 145). Organizational culture is
an important factor to consider when implementing knowledge management systems.

Accessibility requires codification

To earn the status of a learning organization, an organization must know what it
knows and must share this knowledge in order to learn to cope and perform activities
effectively (Coakes, 2006). Knowledge is classified into two main types: tacit and
explicit (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Tacit knowledge is learned from experience and
can be difficult to express and codify (Matuski and Hill, 1996). Explicit knowledge is
knowledge that is easily codified into text, diagrams and so on (Nonaka, 1991). In 1998
Bontis studied intellectual capital and its impact on business performance. He found
that in every organization knowledge is contained within the individual members of
the organization. This knowledge is considered “tacit knowledge” in that it is contained
JWL in people’s minds. This type of knowledge is often considered more valuable but less
21,4 accessible. Bontis (1998) found that organizations needed some type of structure in
order to capture tacit knowledge and transfer it to “explicit knowledge”, so that the
knowledge becomes accessible to others.
One of the possible solutions is to codify the knowledge to keep the information
from being inaccessible or becoming lost. People in the organization need to articulate
350 their tacit knowledge. Then the articulated knowledge should be “codified”, or recorded
in some fashion, so future personnel can take advantage of the information (Zollo and
Winter, 2002). The process of codification requires members of the organization to
articulate their experiences, which opens communication and knowledge sharing.
Additionally, the codification process may facilitate the new exchange of ideas or the
creation of new knowledge.
Research performed in schools also demonstrates the use of recorded knowledge.
One principal in Glenview, Illinois, noted that “the more data you have, the more it
should drive how we can improve instruction to improve success for the children”
(Jacobsen, 2006, p. 12). Through continued efforts to acquire knowledge, codify the
knowledge and improve practices, the Illinois school experienced positive and
significant changes.
Another possible solution is to use the ideas of situated learning theory and
communities of practices (CoP) (Brown and Duquide, 1991; Lave and Wenger, 1991).
On the basis of situated learning and CoP, the process of codification may result in
knowledge reduction because it utilizes the linear design process, which simplifies
complex tasks into procedures (Janassen, 2006). Knowledge generation, as a dynamic
process, is situated in specific social contexts which include subject of learning,
artifacts, and social others (Ardichvili and Yoon, 2008). Thus, effective knowledge
sharing and workplace learning can also be supported by interaction between novices
and experienced practitioners through design of work areas and schedules to allow
collegial integration and sharing (Lohman, 2006).
In summary, the realization of the importance of informal learning prompts many
organizations to consider ways to improve informal learning in the workplace. A
survey sent to 1,600 US and global organizations reported 96 percent of companies who
completed the survey believed that organizations should provide support and lead
informal learning efforts (McStravick, 2006). Effective informal learning is based on
two important factors, individual learners and organizational support. Without a
supportive organizational learning culture and management commitment, it is difficult
for organization to design appropriate KM systems that are successful in promote
knowledge sharing and workplace learning. A comprehensive approach to KM is
needed to support knowledge sharing and learning in the workplace. These conceptual
understandings of workplace learning, knowledge management, organizational impact
provides theoretical support for this study. Organizational culture and the capability to
facilitate knowledge sharing are critical factors that positively influence learning in the
workplace.

Research questions
To improve organizational performance by facilitation effective knowledge transfer is
why organizations invest in KM systems and strive to be learning organizations. The
success of KM systems is interrelated with the learning culture of the organization. To
cultivate a climate and culture that support and encourage knowledge sharing and Workplace
learning is substantial to assure an enhanced-workplace-learning. In this research, learning
workplace learning is defined to include both formal and informal learning because
business organizations may not distinguish the two. The bottom-line for enhancing
workplace learning is to improve organization performance. Thus, the following
research questions were used to guide this study:
(1) How organizations use knowledge management systems to aid workplace 351
learning?
(2) What specifically do organizations use to increase knowledge accessibility, thus
increase knowledge sharing and support workplace learning?

Methodology
A collective case study methodology was used in this study. According to Stake (2000),
the use of case study design helps to optimize understanding through the use of
experiential knowledge. The use of a collective case study design is particularly helpful
in looking beyond what has been studied in academia to what is being applied in
practice. In order to collect multiple sources of data and allow more depth and richness
to the study, in-depth interviews, reviews of company documents and onsite
observations were conducted (Merriam, 1998). Multiple case studies add confidence to
the findings and increase the reliability of the study (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

Participant organizations
Participation was solicited voluntarily from part-time students (most of them work
full-time) associated with a graduate program at a university in southern USA. Criteria
proposed in the solicitation announcement were:
.
the organization currently have in place a KM process or is considering
implementing a KM process;
.
the organization considers itself as a learning organization; and
.
the organization is willing to allow necessary access for interviews, allow onsite
observations, and provide relevant documents about the company to support the
study.
Five organizations volunteered to join the study and self claimed to have met the
criteria. Two were corporate firms, and three were educational institutions. With
multiple organizations from each sector, the researchers believed to achieve both the
redundancy and variety necessary to gain a better understanding of the field of interest
(Stake, 2000). All organizations are located in a southern state in the US. Knowledge
management systems were adopted as the unit of analysis in this study. Table I
provides a brief description of the participant organizations and interview informants.

Data collection and analysis

Data were obtained by semi-structured interviews of primary contacts, as listed in
Table I, within each organization; by observations; and by company documentations.
Each interview lasted about 1 hour, and comprehensive notes were taken during the
interview. Reflections on each interview were written by the interviewee as field notes
JWL
Name used in
21,4 this the study Company profile Interviewees

Firm A A publicly traded software manufacturer Chief learning officer, director of

based in the USA with more than 3,000 training, senior training specialist
employees located in multiple countries
352 around the world
Firm B A leader of a rent-to-own industry with an Executive VP of information
approximate 41 percent market share in the technology, training coordinator
USA. It employs 21,000 employees with
3,500 stores in the 50 states of the USA and
in Puerto Rico and Canada
School C A public elementary school located in the School principal district instructional
Dallas-Fort Worth area. It is a 5A school technology coordinator, campus
district which by definition enrolls at least instructional technology coordinator
1,522 students
School D A community college located in the south President of the college, director of
central USA, in a fast-growing suburb near professional development, VP of
a major metropolitan area. It is one of the human resources
fastest growing community colleges in the
nation and currently enrolls around 34,000
students
School E A community college located in a rural Director of institutional research, chair
Table I. sparsely populated area in Texas with of faculty development committee
Description of participant campuses in larger metropolitan areas. The
organization and current enrollment is approximately 2,500
interview informants students

for future reference. Interviews were conducted in English using open-ended,

semi-structured questions generated from the following interview guidelines:
(1) What systems does your organization have in place that helps capture tacit
knowledge and convert it to explicit knowledge to improve workplace learning?
(2) What plans do you have for improving knowledge sharing in your
organization?
(3) How have the systems that you have in place improved performance?
(4) Based on your experience, what would you recommend to other organizations
wanting to increase knowledge sharing in their organization?
Before, during and after the interviews, relevant documents were sought from
interview participants. The research team had a unique advantage for onsite
observations because each member represents one of the studied organizations except
the faculty researcher. This gave each of them a negotiating insider/outsider status to
understand the cultural norms and values within the participating organizations
(Merriam et al., 2001).
Interview data were analyzed using open coding and thematic analysis (Boyatzis,
1998). Then data were triangulated based on information collected through interview,
observation and documentation analysis. Further triangulation of data was achieved
by ensuring that interviews were conducted at multiple levels within the organization.
Within the corporate environment, interviews were conducted at the C-level, Workplace
managerial level and non-managerial level. Within the educational setting, interviews learning
were conducted at the district administration level, at the campus administration level
and at the campus instructional technologist level. The data were first analyzed within
case and then cross cases (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995). Initial analysis was
conducted and themes were identified by each author individually. Then authors
established discussions when there were discrepancies; at times, authors revisited the 353
data and debated on issues multiple times until consensus was reached. This process of
discussion established among all authors helped gain further reliability and a
trustworthy interpretation of the findings.

Findings
In this section, information gathered through data analysis is summarized. Themes
emerged from the data analysis are reported. Studied organizations are divided into
two categories: academic and non-academic to guide the discussions, details for each
organization is listed in Table I. The findings are organized according to the four
interview guidelines. Organizational acceptance and usage of knowledge management
systems is addressed along with the organization’s recommendations to other similar
organizations with a desire to increase knowledge sharing.

Current systems of knowledge management among studied organizations

Increasing interest in knowledge as a competitive advantage, many organizations are
looking to information technologies as solutions to KM efforts (Hasan and Crawford,
2003). However, KM is not just a technological solution because the success of a KM
system is largely depended on the people who use the system to share knowledge and
make the transfer of learning a reality. KM is a conscious strategy to create, capture,
share, and use of knowledge for the purpose of enhancing organizational performance
(Damodaran and Olphert, 2000; O’Dell and Grayson, 1998). It is to the surprise of the
authors that none of the studied organizations had an overarching roadmap and
strategy to transform their organizations into becoming a learning organization. Two
themes emerged in the responses.

Lack of overarching learning strategy

Data analysis revealed that a majority of the studied organizations lacked in
overarching learning strategies and adequate financial supports. Each studied
organizations employed different means of KM practices to capture and reuse
knowledge. For organizations, knowing how to find and apply relevant information
efficiently is more practical than trying to master vast amounts of information (Styhre,
2002). The knowledge management approach should present a fit to the organizational
culture (McDermott and O’Dell, 2001). Firm A used several knowledge management
systems for internal and external knowledge sharing. Some teams still elected to
bypass these systems, instead using group meetings as a primary means of sharing
knowledge. This was perceived as a lack of coordination at the organizational level.
One interviewee noted:
Some of the knowledge systems had become “knowledge silos”, resulting in limited
communication with other business units. In some situations, this caused an increase in
development time along with quality assurance issues.
JWL All of the three academic organizations define their KM systems by individual job
21,4 positions. School C, a public elementary school, referred to coordinator of technology
integration and instructional technology specialist for KM and both of them avoided to
answer the question and believe no systemic approach were in place for the purpose of
KM. School D referred to a position created in 2004, director of professional
development. School E referred to the director of institutional research, none of them
354 was able to provide an institutional level strategy for KM instead referenced to their
own job responsibilities. When asked about KM systems, the director of institutional
research in School E stated:
I am the one person who is responsible for every aspect of essential recording and reporting
that must take place on almost a daily basis. To address the problem, I created a system of
computer files and continuity guides for each aspect of the role to ensure all aspects of the job
are known should I become unavailable.
Firm B is the only studied organization that has demonstrated a coordinated effort,
because KM has been a top priority of the organization for close to a decade,
exemplified by a budgetary commitment. Table II illustrates this consistent effort over
an eight-year period.

Academic organizations lag behind non-academic organizations in KM initiatives

It was clear to the researchers that the studied academic organizations had inadequate
strategy and funds to support KM initiatives institutional-wide. During the interviews,
none of the studied academic organizations could name a single KM strategy at the
institutional level. One interviewee at School C observed:
What system? I am not sure there is a system and it is due to the lack of funds.
School D mainly listed on-campus events to coordinate leaning opportunities. One
example shared was a certificate in administration, which trains employees for
supervisory positions. Another example was the “All campus day”, the college
essentially shuts down operations for the day for all employees to attend. It was used to
increase employee awareness of changes at the college.
The word “system” does not have to mean computer systems; it can be any kind of
infrastructure put in place to capture knowledge for the purpose of knowledge sharing
and learning. During the data collection process, this understanding of KM systems
guided the authors to think beyond technological systems. Of the five studied
organizations, none exhibited an overarching roadmap to facilitate a comprehensive
approach to knowledge management. Firm B suggested a long time commitment to
KM and extensive investment in KM technologies; however, it failed to address the
relationship to its organizational learning culture.
All of the five studied organizations self assessed to be learning organizations when
they agreed to participate in this study. The findings suggested a lack of common
definition for learning organization. Three academic organizations believed that they
were learning organizations simply because they were in the business of teaching and
learning. The difference in approach to KM and learning organizations is significant
between the academic and non-academic organizations. By comparison, non-academic
organizations exhibited a much more concerted effort in KM and learning organization
initiatives. In addition, the funding gap between the two non-academic organizations
and three academic organizations is significant. No specific funding figures were
Collection Storage Sharing Year System or process implemented and benefits
Workplace
learning
2000 Virtual private network (VPN) implemented
Data communications infrastructure created between the back
office and stores to allow for the easy collection and
dissemination of explicit information. Additionally, this created
a foundation for a collection tool for the conversion of tacit to 355
explicit knowledge
2001 RACiNET implemented
Intranet infrastructure layer to allow for the collection of
information (tacit knowledge) and the distribution of
information (explicit knowledge). Today’s intranets are mostly
an electronic library designed to share information, but their
potential extends far beyond that (Denton, 2007)
2001 E-mail services provided
E-mail services provided to all company locations. These
services provide a simplistic medium for conveying thoughts
and ideas (tacit knowledge) either to a large audience or to a
subset as the situation dictates
2002 Web-based reporting (redesigned 2004 as part of the Business
Intelligence initiative)
Web-based reporting implemented from a centralized
repository. The centralization of these services and data
collection processes surrounding the knowledge base of how to
react to the information presented could be morphed into
processes that allowed individuals to react or process the
information and come to the same conclusions
2003 “My Learning Center, Learning Management System”
With the vast amount of implicit knowledge being collected a
method of managing the content in a manner to make it readily
available to the users was necessary. Information that previously
was passed along or utilized by word of mouth (tacit knowledge)
now had a “container” from which this information (explicit
knowledge) was given “anytime, anyplace, any pace” availability
2004 Business intelligence/data warehouse initiative
Processes created allowing for the storage, analysis and
distribution of tacit knowledge
2004 Success factors, performance development system
Performance development is an integrated and planned system
for continuously improving the performance of all people in an
agency. It is a way of defining work goals and standards,
reviewing performance against these standards, actively
managing all levels of performance, and maximizing learning
and development (Individual Performance Development, 2001)
2005 Sarbanes-Oxley regulatory compliance
An output of the company’s initiative was to document
processes and procedures that previously were considered tacit
knowledge. Information was stored in a variety of media
depending on the audience Table II.
2007 E-discovery/content Initiatives leading to the
Management road-map designed collection, storage and
Tacit knowledge stored as unstructured data can be managed sharing of knowledge in
in such a way that it can be utilized as explicit information Firm B
JWL discussed during the interviews; however, the funding differences were clearly implied.
21,4 Within Firm A there are several knowledge management systems for internal and
external knowledge sharing:
This company has several knowledge management systems in place for both internal and
external knowledge sharing. Some systems are accessible across the organization by multiple
teams; however, other knowledge systems are considered knowledge silos that are only
356 accessible to limited personnel.
Firm B has had considerate support for knowledge management efforts over a period
of eight years. On the contrary, three academic organizations suggested a lack of
funding and support from the top, which appeared to be the prevalent factors in their
inability to move toward a comprehensive institutional level KM initiatives.

Plans to improve knowledge sharing in studied organizations

Efforts implemented among studied organizations for the purpose of capturing and
sharing knowledge were the focus of the investigation. Findings suggested that all
studied organizations shared a belief that it is important to capture tacit knowledge
and makes it explicit as a mean to improve knowledge sharing within the organization.
Tactic knowledge, which essentially resides in people reflected by the dynamic nature
of knowledge presents a challenge to organizations who try to relay on technological
means alone (Hasan and Crawford, 2003). One theme has emerged in this area:

Different solutions were sought to share and transfer knowledge

Firm A recently filled a position of chief learning officer for the organization to drive
and integrate the knowledge management initiatives. The organization has undertaken
an organizational restructure to facilitate this change. Firm B has clearly demonstrated
a significant amount of investment over eight years for the KM initiatives. Not only has
Firm B been making monetary commitment to creating a knowledge infrastructure,
but it has also invested in additional talents for the training and development
department to effectively manage the processes.
The three academic organizations have budgetary constraints but continue to push
initiatives for improving knowledge sharing in their respective organizations. School
C, the public school, has initiated an effort to hire a chief technology officer to
coordinate technology and knowledge management efforts at the district level. Even
though the hire was not approved by the board, it has evoked an awareness of the
needs for technology support and knowledge management in the school district in
order to improve instructions. However, the reaction from the instructional technology
specialist was not entirely enthusiastic:
Until technology is included in the Staff development days I do not think we can move
forward. Resentment is sometimes created when teachers have to give up their conference
time or have to attend a workshop after school. If the district expects them to use a program
they should allow time for training.
School D has discussed plans to move professional development to a more visible
position from underneath a student development department to be part of the human
resources department. Owing to the pace of its organizational growth, School D has
also created a marketing campaign to inform and educate the potential users of
programs and processes available for knowledge sharing. Sherry (1995) explained that
from an anthropological perspective, consumer behavior can be viewed as an adaptive Workplace
strategy. The marketer’s strategy is to implement planned change successfully. If this learning
happens, the cultural norms have been successfully changed (Jordan, 2003).
School E is making a concerted effort to move information previously stored in
paper format to intranet facilities. This restructure was to help facilitate knowledge
sharing and learning using a college portal. As an organizational concept, this
initiative is designed to enhance the way previously collected knowledge is shared. 357
A variety of strategies and practices existed in studied organizations when asked
about plans for improving knowledge sharing. The needs for organizational level
support were shared among studied organizations. Using technology to codify tacit
knowledge did not appear as the only solution to knowledge sharing and learning
transfer. The “right” KM strategy is closely tied to individual organization needs and
environment. A more diversified KM strategy might be suitable for academic
organizations due to diversified subject areas, faculty and staff groups.

How KM systems helped in improving performance among studied organizations

Peter Drucker (1994), a renowned management guru, believes there is an information
revolution underway and that capturing and sharing information are keys to
organization competitiveness. For the non-academic organizations, knowledge systems
have contributed to increased corporate performance. As interviewees from Firm A
noted:
It is believed that this new emphasis on learning and development will assist the firm in its
overall performance. Initial financial data supports this theory; however, this is limited due to
the relative newness of the restructuring.
Reported benefits of the current systems to the corporations’ performance include better
customer service and lower support response times in the support division. In the sales
division, benefits include better product knowledge, pipeline reporting, and improved internal
processes.
For Firm B, results from implementing knowledge infrastructure included an increase
in external company recognition and an overall increase in financial performance. Here
is a testimony given by one of the interviewees in Firm B:
To illustrate the effectiveness of the organization being a “Learning organization” by way of
example the recent acquisition/merger of the organization with its second largest competitor
will be reviewed. The organization took possession of its second largest competitor in a $680
million dollar bid on mid-November 2007; a bid which involved the purchase of 784 stores
across the continental USA. By the end of December 2007, 630 of the stores had the customers
notified of the change in ownership, systems replaced, and operating processes and
procedures consistent with the purchasing organization implemented.
In the academic organizations areas of improvement included an increased ability to
utilize learning technologies. This has enhanced improvement in the delivery of
instruction and acquired knowledge. New program identification and higher
awareness has increased coordination and the ability to share expertise with
colleagues. Networks of human relationships often determine which knowledge people
access. They usually take advantage of databases only when colleagues direct them to
a specific point in the database (Lesser and Storck, 2001).
JWL Further noted were those individuals in the organization who used the tools and
information without the author being present. Also, through the implementation of the
21,4 processes, decision-making has moved to lower levels in the organization. Learning
organizations are also believed to empower employees (Evans, 1998), enhancing their
commitment to the organization and reducing the need for bureaucratic controls (Retna
and Ng, 2006). Additional benefits for the organizations are that participatory systems
358 have been implemented, allowing for more individuals to share knowledge. As noted
by one interviewee:
I have been able to share my expertise with others in other schools. That has been good and
has had a positive influence on learning, I think.
Another area of improvement demonstrated through the use of learning systems in one
of the academic organizations is the Academy of Collegiate Excellence (ACE) program
in School D, which addresses the projected staffing needs for upcoming shortages of
leaders in higher education. Individuals entering the ACE program are better trained
and therefore demonstrate improved levels of performance. In the past, education and
training programs in US communities were generally a crazy quilt of fragmented or
overlapping or underutilized programs (Sleezer and Denny, 2004). Through the use of
learning systems, knowledge is captured and shared among teachers and learners even
after they graduate from the program. Acting as an extended community of practices,
this has supported the continued learning of graduates and practitioners.
No theme emerged from this area of the study; however, it was obvious to the
authors that the benefits of knowledge management were shared among studied
organizations.

Recommendations for other organizations

In order to incorporate knowledge sharing into corporate culture, managers need to
understand underlying business processes of the organization. Based on this
understanding, managers should be able to identify the overarching framework
necessary for capturing, storing and sharing knowledge. This framework should
consider the corporate culture and supported by the strategic planning of the
organization (Kaufman et al., 2003). Two themes were identified as the result of data
analysis.

Organizational support is the key to KM effort

Organizational support is multifaceted and includes overarching organizational
learning culture, management support, financial support, technical support and
personnel support. In School C, recommendations included having a certified teacher
on each campus that has the sole responsibility of assisting teachers with the
integration of learning technologies into the curriculum. This group of certified
teachers should be under the supervision of someone at the district level:
In my opinion, when these positions are placed under the supervision of the principal, they
are often assigned duties such as bus/cafeteria monitors, substitute teachers, etc.
As learning systems are implemented, time for learning must be provided for
classroom teachers. According to the Institute for Retail Excellence (2000) as much
as 20 percent of employee turnover can be attributed to poor or nonexistent learning
opportunities (Phillips and Phillips, 2002). To increase learning on the job, school
districts need to have an institutional learning culture that supports learning and Workplace
the use of new technologies. School budgets need to be established to provide learning
funding for the implementation of the learning plans. One interviewee shared his
concerns:
Frustration is built into the “no training” or “little training” mode. It also creates a negative
environment. Good ideas/projects can turn on you quickly when training is not tied to
implementation. 359
School D recommended including consistency of learning across the college.
Consistency of learning could be facilitated by the development of a department or
an individual dedicated to learning across the organization. Another recommendation
included someone championing learning, such as the president of the community
college. The spirit of an organization is created from the top (Drucker and Maciariello,
2004). Further recommendations included a needs analysis through employee surveys
and a comprehensive plan prior to implementation. When change agents rely on their
performance management expertise, they are responsible for conducting analysis
activities used in identifying organizational and employee needs (Gilley et al., 2001;
Kaufman et al., 2003).
School E has emphasized communication as being important to increasing
knowledge sharing. Recommendations include building rapport (trust) within the
organization and sharing as much information with as many people as possible. It is
not unusual for an organization to invest substantial financial resources in new
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to enable better practices in
acquiring, collecting, storing, distributing, sharing and utilizing codified knowledge
and information resources. However, the real benefit from new technical investments
will be achieved only if its use is supported by such invisible managerial means as
trust (Huotari and Iivonen, 2004). Also, sharing duties with coworkers provides the
opportunity to learn about different processes in the organization furthering the
knowledge transfer. Merriam and Simpson (2000) noted, “This process can be helped
along by reading widely on the topic, talking with other people, especially those who
are familiar with the area, observing closely situations pertinent to the problem, taking
notes as thoughts on the topic occur to you, and so on” (p. 17). An organization can
provide a supportive learning culture that helps cultivate learning and sharing
behaviors among employees.

Suitable framework that facilitates a coordinated and centralized effort

As an organization embraces the learning culture, the framework should be flexible
because the organization needs to focus on what is most important at a given time. The
balancing of knowledge and management systems is important (Caveleri et al., 2005).
Guided by an overarching framework, an organization can focus on a consistent effort
to embrace and utilize KM practices to enhance workplace learning. As one interviewee
observed:
What could, and should be recommended to other organizations looking to increase the
knowledge sharing for their organizations is perseverance . . . [They should have an]
understanding that a framework will have to be flexible enough to be modified based on
business constraints and needs of what will span for most organizations – years.
JWL An overarching framework will provide coordinated and centralized efforts within the
21,4 organization. Thus, it will help reduce knowledge silos, coordinate resources and create
a consistent learning culture that values knowledge sharing and encourage learning.

Discussion and conclusion

A significant portion of workplace learning could be credited to informal learning,
360 which is initiated by learners through informal means (Marsick and Watkins, 1990;
Sorohan, 1993). Work and learning have become intertwined and inseparable
(Streumer, 2006). Therefore, factors at the workplace affecting employees’ engagement
in workplace learning have been the focus of this study. All of the studied
organizations shown lack of interests in trying to distinguish informal learning and
formal learning in the workplace. Authors believe that a conducive organizational
learning context will positively influence both formal and informal learning in the
workplace.
To create favorable learning conditions at work, the studied organizations shared a
common interest in capturing knowledge and making it accessible to the employees.
To increase knowledge sharing and workplace learning, all studied organizations
believed that organization support is the key. Organization support means
organizational learning culture, management support, financial support, technical
support, and personnel support. Lack of any of these resources could result in
frustrated employees and misaligned tasks assignments that attributes to failures in
KM effort.
The importance of understanding underlying business processes was also revealed
by these studied organizations. It is the foundation to create an overarching framework
of capturing, storing and sharing knowledge to fit the organizational learning culture.
This study revealed differences between academic and non-academic (for profit)
organizations in their business processes and this difference might require different
KM approaches. Academic organizations might need diversified KM systems because
the unique subject areas of different colleges, departments, and programs. However,
the authors argue that academic organizations still need an institutional level KM
framework that provides guidance and support to subject specific knowledge sharing
groups. A centralized supporting structure is needed and a systematic approach can
improve individual and organization performance through effective and timely
knowledge sharing, which facilitates both formal and informal learning in the
workplace.
Studied academic institutions suffered from inadequate financial support, which
could be the result management structures and budgetary processes of the academic
institutions in the US. The budget of a school or community college is often the
decision of the school district or the state legislature. It is difficult for individual
academic organization to have an overall KM strategy and make any significant
investment without getting the approval from the school district or the state
legislature. Academic organizations might want to focus on strategies that would work
within their own control, such as forming communities of networks to improve
communication and knowledge sharing within their school environment.
In summary, this study indicates that not having an overarching strategy and
adequate financial and personnel support to facilitate a coordinated and centralized
effort could result in a deficiency in organization’s ability to support knowledge
accessibility and sharing. An understanding of the core business processes when Workplace
guided by an overarching organizational learning culture, sharing critical knowledge learning
and learning new knowledge all become a part of the usual working life.
Organizations should capture and codify knowledge to keep information from
becoming lost and share it so employees can benefit from it (Zollo and Winter, 2002).
To improve workplace learning by increased knowledge accessibility requires an
organization to manage knowledge as object as well as process (Zack, 1999). The focus 361
of converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge drives an organization to first
identify what to gather and how to organize knowledge artifacts. This process may
result in knowledge reduction because of possibility of losing the richness of
knowledge generation and social context (Ardichvili and Yoon, 2008; Janassen, 2006).
The goal of KM is to help employees share and put knowledge and information into
action for the purpose of creating value and improve organizational performance
(O’Dell and Grayson, 1998). To achieve the goal of KM, organizations should create
dynamic strategies and practices. The prioritization of learning is dependent upon on
organization’s learning culture. Organizational learning culture and overarching
management support are important factors that will positively influence workplace
learning by facilitating effective knowledge management and sharing practices across
the organization (Berg and Chyung, 2008; Ellinger, 2005; Eraut, 2004).
This study has several limitations that should be considered. This study used an
exploratory case study approach, which means the findings are not generalized to broad
populations (Yin, 2003). Second, participating organizations are all from a southern state
in the United States by using a limited voluntary sample. It is recommended that future
studies address a broad audience using a purposeful sampling method. Third, this study
discussed the need for comprehensive and dynamic KM strategies and practices but fail
to define the details. Fourth, this study did not try to distinguish tacit and explicit
knowledge, formal and informal learning while conducting the interview.
Further researches need to understand the nature of workplace learning and how to
shape a comprehensive and dynamic KM strategies and practices. Understand the
details of how informal learning take place would allow organizations to better
facilitate informal learning in the workplace to improve individual and organizational
performance. It will be beneficial to understand the difference between academic and
non-academic organizations regarding to the management of organizational
knowledge, sharing and promoting informal learning.
This study revealed some differences between academic and non-academic
organizations in pursuing learning and knowledge sharing in the workplace. Although
academic organizations are in the business of learning and knowledge sharing, they
fail to treat learning and knowledge sharing as a systemic endeavor. The narrow focus
on intellectual productivity might cause academic organizations’ failure in recognizing
that better faculty shared learning could be transferred to better teaching and student
learning.
The capability of capturing and sharing new knowledge plays an important role in
workplace learning and human resources development (HRD). One of the important
roles of HRD professionals is design, develop, and implement learning and
development solutions. A keen understanding of the knowledge needed in the
organization, will guide HRD professional to design the right solution and be part of
the dynamic process of knowledge generation, accumulation, and dissemination.
JWL References
21,4 Ardichvili, A. and Yoon, S.W. (2008), “Designing integrated knowledge management and
e-learning systems: the application of situated learning and activity theories”, Proceedings
of 6th International Conference of Academy of Human Resoruce Development, Asia
Chapter, pp. 665-73.
Berg, S.A. and Chyung, S.Y. (2008), “Factors that influence informal learning in the workplace”,
362 Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 229-44.
Billett, S. (2002), “Toward a workplace pedagogy: guidance, participation, and engagement”,
Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Bontis, N. (1998), “Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models”,
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-76.
Boyatzis, R. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code
Development, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Brown, J.S. and Duquide, P. (1991), “Organizational learning and communities of practices”,
Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 40-7.
Caveleri, S., Seivert, S. and Lee, L.W. (2005), Knowledge Leadership: The Art and Science of the
Knowledge-based Organization, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
Coakes, E. (2006), “Storing and sharing knowledge: supporting the management of knowledge
made explicit in transnational organizations”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 6,
pp. 579-93.
Damodaran, L. and Olphert, W. (2000), “Barriers and facilitators to the use of knowledge
management systems”, Behaviors and Information Technology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 405-13.
Denton, K. (2007), “Corporate intranets: how can they give a new meaning to training and
development?”, Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 21 No. 6, p. 12.
Drucker, P.F. (1994), “The theory of business”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 5, pp. 95-104.
Drucker, P.F. (1999), Management Challenges for the Twenty-first Century, HarperCollins, New
York, NY.
Drucker, P.F. and Maciariello, J.A. (2004), The Daily Drucker: 366 Days of Insight and Motivation
for Getting the Right Things Done, HarperCollins Publisher, New York, NY.
Ellinger, A.D. (2005), “Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace setting:
the case of ‘reinventing itself company’”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 389-415.
Engestrom, Y. and Kerosuo, H. (2007), “From workplace learning to inter-organizational learning
and back: the contribution of activity theory”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 336-42.
Eraut, M. (2004), “Informal learning in the workplace”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 247-73.
Evans, S. (1998), “Revisiting the learning organization”, Work Study, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 70-4.
Frattali, R. (2007), “The company that teaches together performs together”, T þ D, Vol. 61 No. 7,
pp. 36-9.
Gilley, J.W., Quatro, S.A., Hoekstra, E., Whittle, D.D. and Maycunich, A. (2001), The Manager as
Change Agent: A Practical Guide for Developing High-performance People and
Organizations, Perseus Publications, Cambridge, MA.
Hasan, H. and Crawford, K. (2003), “Codifying or enabling? The challenge of knowledge
management systems”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 54 No. 2,
pp. 184-93.
Huotari, M. and Iivonen, M. (2004), Trust in Knowledge Management and Systems in Workplace
Organizations, Idea Group Publications, Hershey, PA.
learning
Illeris, K. (2003), “Workplace learning and learning theory”, Journal of Workplace Learning,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 161-78.
Institute for Retail Excellence (2000), Employee Turnover and Retention in the Retail Industry:
The Issues, Statistics and Success Strategies, Institute for Retail Excellence, Carlsbad, CA.
Jacobsen, J. (2006), “Making the honor roll: schools earn top grades with quality practices”, 363
The Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 9-13.
Janassen, D.H. (2006), “On the role of concepts in learning and instructional design”, Educational
Technology Research & Development, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 177-96.
Jordan, A.T. (2003), Business Anthropology, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.
Kaufman, R., Oakley-Browne, H., Watkins, R. and Leigh, D. (2003), Strategic Planning: Aligning
People, Performance, and Payoffs, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Lesser, E.L. and Storck, J. (2001), “Communities of practice and organizational performance”,
IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 831-41.
Lohman, M.C. (2006), “Factors influencing teachers’ engagement in informal learning activities”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 141-56.
McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001), “Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
McStravick, P. (2006), “Informally speaking: is there support for informal learning?”, Chief
Learning Officer, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 60-2.
Marsick, V. and Watkins, K. (1990), Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York, NY.
Matuski, S. and Hill, C. (1996), “The utilization of contingent work, knowledge creations, and
competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 680-97.
Merriam, S. (1998), Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Merriam, S.B. and Simpson, E.L. (2000), A Guide to Research for Educators and Trainers of
Adults, 2nd ed., Krieger, Malabar, FL.
Merriam, S., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M., Ntseane, G. and Muhamad, M. (2001), “Power and
positionality: negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures”, International
Journal of Life Long Learning, September-October, pp. 405-16.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New
Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge-creating company”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C.J. (1998), If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of Internal
Knowledge and Best Practice, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Phillips, J.J. and Phillips, P.P. (2002), Retaining Your Best Employees: Nine Case Studies from the
Real World of Training, American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.
JWL Retna, K.S. and Ng, P.T. (2006), “The challenges of adopting the learning organization
philosophy in a Singapore school”, International Journal of Educational Management,
21,4 Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 140-52.
Sauve, E. (2007), “Informal knowledge transfer”, T þ D, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 22-4.
Senge, P.M. (1990), “The leader’s new work: building learning organizations”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
364 Sherry, J.F. (1995), Contemporary Marketing and Consumer Behavior: An Anthropological
Sourcebook, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Skule, S. (2004), “Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and assess informal
learning in the workplace”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 8-17.
Sleezer, C.M. and Denny, D. (2004), “Strategies for developing a high-skilled workforce”,
Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 41-55.
Sorohan, E. (1993), “We do; therefore we learn”, Training and Development, Vol. 4 No. 10,
pp. 47-52.
Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Stake, R.E. (2000), “Case studies”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of
Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Streumer, J. (2006), Work-related Learning, Springer, Dordrecht.
Styhre, A. (2002), “The knowledge-intensive company and the economy of sharing: rethinking
utility and knowledge management”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 228-36.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Watkins, K.E. (1995), “Workplace learning: changing times, changing practices”, in Franklin
Spikes, W. (Ed.), Workplace Learning: New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-16.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zack, M. (1999), “Managing codified knowledge”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 45-58.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-51.

About the authors

Jessica Li is an Assistant Professor at the College of Education, University of North Texas.
Jessica Li is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Gary Brake, Angeline Champion, Tony Fuller, Sandy Gable and Lori Hatcher-Busch are all
graduate students who conducted data collections and participated in the data analysis process.
They are all based at the University of North Texas, Denton, Texas

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints