A Comparative Case Study of Knowledge Resource Utilization 237Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without writtenBACKGROUND
Four organizations were examined in this comparative case study. Three cases come
from a review of relevant literature. The fourth case is based on actual work experience
the organization described in the case. Lessons from the literature-based cases are drawn
upon to consider the last case.
SETTING THE STAGE
Fortune magazine predicts that the most successful corporations will establish
themselves as learning organizations (i.e., enterprises that are completely adaptive)
(Domain, 1989). In support of this claim, a study by Shell Oil found that companies that
last over 75 years have had the ability to explore new business and organizational
opportunities to create potential new sources of growth (de Geus, 1988). In an increas-
ingly dynamic, interdependent, and unpredictable world, it is no longer possible to
“figure it all out at the top.” The key to organizational longevity is the ability to
continually explore new business and organizational opportunities that create potential
new sources of growth (Senge, 1990). The top-down model whereby “the top thinks and
the local acts” gives way to integrating thinking and acting at all levels. Flatter
organizational structures and employee empowerment are marking the way in contempo-
rary organizations. The following passages present an overview of organizational
learning and ERP in order to provide insight into knowledge practices in organizations.
The Learning Organization Perspective
A learning organization looks for differences between its actual and expected
results and tries to correct the errors that have caused the difference. This type of
company seeks to improve its actions through acquiring knowledge and understanding.
It not only captures knowledge but utilizes its ability to respond and adapt to changing
organizational environments (Hashim & Othman, 2003). A key to becoming a learning
organization is to achieve a state of generative learning (Senge, 1995). Organizations
practicing generative learning are able to observe the big picture — the whole of systems
that control events. When a company fails to identify the entire source of problems, the
prescribed solution addresses only the symptoms of the problem rather than eliminating
the underlying causes.
In addition to generative learning, learning organizations must be capable of
creating extrinsic and intrinsic visions of their company. Extrinsic visions focus on
achieving something relative to an outsider, such as a competitor. Intrinsic visions focus
on creating a new type of product or taking an established product to a new, higher level
(i.e., a new level of creativity and innovation). Both visions need to coexist for a learning
organization to emerge. To illustrate, consider a company that focuses solely on extrinsic
competition. The purpose of such a vision is to defeat an adversary. However, the vision
will eventually weaken the organization and lead to negative consequences (Senge,
1990). Focusing on purely intrinsic visions can also create harmful circumstances. For
example, managers at the Facit Company, a mechanical calculator manufacturer, did not
recognize the development of the electronic calculator industry as a new technological
advancement. As such, the managers lacked the intrinsic vision to improve upon and