Page 400 -

Organizational Learning and Organizational Memory 383

practitioners, and researchers) use policy, evidence, and experience as knowledge. The
sub-concepts for knowledge use are: (1) distribution of knowledge through different
modalities such as newsletters, bulletins, policy briefs, and web-based resources to
targeted audiences; (2) sharing of knowledge through interpersonal communications
and dialogues via e-mails and discussion forums; (3) application of the knowledge as
new policies, guidelines, or practice routines. Majchrzak et al. (2004) specify two types
of knowledge resource “ reuse ” : the reuse of knowledge for routine tasks (e.g., use of
templates, boilerplates, existing solutions) versus reuse that stimulates knowledge
synthesis and innovation (e.g., searching a database to fi nd new ideas to add to exist-
ing knowledge). Knowledge reuse demonstrates that knowledge is being retrieved from
organizational memory ( Markus 2001 ) and provides an excellent indicator of the value
of that resource. Knowledge reuse promotes peer-to-peer learning and helps avoid situ-
ations where people reinvent the wheel by doing work that was already done by
others. Companies typically create both social and technical networks to promote such
reuse ( Huysman and de Wit 2002 ).
Huysman and de Wit (2002 ) studied ten different case studies of knowledge sharing
in companies. They selected companies that were mature and had worked on KM for
a number of years and conducted interviews and analyzed existing documentation at
each site. They found that obstacles to knowledge sharing were: lack of motivation,
lack of time, and lack of a means to share the knowledge. In particular, Huysman and
de Wit (2002 ) found that “ employees regularly avoided using the technology: “ In
practice, Information and Communication Technologies ’ (ICT) role seems limited
while social personal networks are more important to knowledge sharing. . . . The role
of ICT in this should be more about connecting people and not so much about acquir-
ing and disseminating knowledge ” (p. 159). Conklin (2001) also maintains that knowl-
edge management fails for a variety of reasons, including a broad cultural focus on
work products over process, and a lack of tools that make the sharing and reuse of
knowledge transparent.
“ Organizational learning is the process through which an organization constructs
knowledge or reconstructs existing knowledge ” ( Huysman and de Wit 2002 , 30). This
defi nition of organizational learning is anchored in social constructivism, where
individual knowledge is transformed into organizational knowledge, encapsulated
in rules, procedures, technologies, and other operational routines ( Berger and
Luckman 1966 ; Gergen 1994 ). Organizational knowledge is that knowledge that an
individual can access, use, and reuse because they are a part of that organization —
often referred to as corporate or organizational memory ( Kransdorff and Williams
2000 ).