Page 132 -

Knowledge Capture and Codifi cation 115

documented at a more abstract level (e.g., need not have specifi c dates or other
details in order to convey the major points to be made) and the quotes are verifi ed
and authorization obtained in order to print them with an attribution. The content
is then coded, summarized, and published as part of the organizational memory.
The results are often transcribed in a Q/A format as shown in table 4.1 . A learning
history is thus a systematic review of successes and failures in order to capture best
practices and lessons learned as they pertain to a signifi cant organizational event or
project. Some typical questions posed in learning history knowledge capture would
include:
• What was your role in the project/initiative?
• How would you judge its success or failure?
• What would you do differently if you could?
• What recommendations do you have for other people who may face a similar
situation?
• What innovative things were done along the way?
Learning histories are typically presented in two side-by-side columns with a nar-
rative in one column and evaluative comments in the other. This allows readers to
arrive at their own conclusions. The original participants must always validate the
learning history before it is fi nally disseminated throughout the organization. Dis-
semination works best when it is an organized activity. Action learning is based on
the fact that people tend to learn by doing. Small groups can be formed with partici-
pants who share common issues, goals, or learning needs. They can meet regularly,
report on progress, brainstorm alternatives, try out new things, and evaluate the
results. This is a form of task-oriented group work and learning that is well suited for
narrow, specialized domains and specifi c issues. One good theme for such small groups
would be to analyze a learning history, and to discuss what they would have done
differently and why in order to promote a better understanding of the event in
question.
E-learning solutions typically involve the capture of valuable procedural knowledge
and documenting a history of all procedural changes together with an explanation or
justifi cation for the change that was made ( George and Kolbasuk 2003 ). In this way,
a historical thread is maintained and the context within which changes were deemed
to be necessary does not become lost. In addition to a repository for such knowledge,
a process needs to be put into place whereby employees who are planning to leave
have the time and the necessary support to organize and store their reference