The problem and the solution. Alignment between strategic and operational processes and organizational learning and knowledge management (KM) solutions is a key to sustained competitive advantage of business organizations. Currently, most KM design approaches follow linear and individual-centered frameworks similar to traditional instructional systems design models and pay little attention to how user collaboration occurs. Furthermore, KM is rarely integrated with organizational learning systems. The authors of this study use concepts from the situated learning literature,Vygotskian theory of cognitive development, and a holistic learning and performance architecture to propose a new approach to the design of integrative learning and KM systems.The article concludes with specific recommendations for systems designers and implications for HRD professionals.
Antonacopoulou, E., & Chiva, R. (2007). The social complexity of organizational learning: The dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning , 38(3), 277-295.
2.
Ardichvili, A. (2002). Knowledge management, HRD, and the Internet technology . Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(4), 451-463.
3.
Austin, J.R. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance . Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 866-878.
4.
Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(10), 25-47.
5.
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice . Organization Science, 2(1), 40-47.
6.
Bruner, J.S. (1997). Celebrating divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 40, 63-73.
7.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Solomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
8.
Collison, C., & Parcell, G. (2005). Learning to fly: Practical knowledge management from leading and learning organizations. New York: Capstone.
9.
Cook, S., & Brown, J.S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.
10.
Dick, W., Carey, L.M., & Carey, J.O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation . In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward co-configuration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1/2), 23-39.
13.
Garrison, J. (2001). An introduction to Dewey's theory of functional "trans-action": An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(4), 275-296.
14.
Gherardi, S. (2001). From organizational learning to practice-based knowing. Human Relations, 54(1), 131-139.
15.
Gourlay, S. (2001). Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4(1), 27-46.
16.
Horton, W.K. (2006). E-learning by design. San Francisco : Pfeiffer.
17.
Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.
18.
Johannessen, J.-A., Olaisen, J., & Olsen, B. (2001). Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: The importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. International Journal of Information Management, 21, 3-20.
19.
Jonassen, D.H. (2006). On the role of concepts in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development , 54(2), 177-196.
20.
Jonassen, D., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Education Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.
21.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2005). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
22.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Leont'ev, A.N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4-33.
24.
McKay, J., & Wager, W. (2007). Electronic performance support systems: Visions and viewpoints. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 147-155). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
25.
Monge, P.R., & Contractor, N.S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Knowing in organizations. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
27.
Rosenberg, M. (2006). Beyond e-learning: Approaches and technologies to enhance organizational knowledge, learning, and performance. New York: Pfeiffer.
28.
Tsoukas, H., & Mylonopoulos, N. (2004). Introduction: Knowledge construction and creation in organizations. British Journal of Management, 15, S1-S8.
29.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A Guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
32.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2004). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from a cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) framework. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451-484.
33.
Yanow, D. (2004). Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries. British Journal of Management, 15, S9-S25.
34.
Yoon, S.W., & Lim, D.H. (2007). Strategic blending: A conceptual framework to improve learning and performance. International Journal of E-Learning, 6(3), 475-489.
