Learning in an Organization
Introduction:
This paper is written about "learning in an organization", in other words, how to transfer knowledge between people who work in the organization. The authors of this study propose that knowledge has two perspectives; one is tacit knowledge and the other is explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), and these two kinds of knowledge can be managed in an organization, which Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) called SECI model. The theory is put on a situation which I joined. I managed business meeting and made a database which tacit knowledge senior colleagues have, is transferred explicit knowledge. The theory can explain dynamism between two knowledge. However, the theory cannot explain practical situation. On the other hand, a concept of Communities of Practice (Wenger 2002) indicates practical situation. As a conclusion, SECI model is not practical concept in terms of how to manage knowledge transfer from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, that is why other concept should be combined and one of which is a concept of Communities of Practice.
Knowledge losing:
I worked in Japan Business Management.inc, healthcare consultancy company for five years, which employs about 360 workers. The company located in Osaka, the second biggest city in Japan. Consulting domains of this company are making strategy, human recourse management, risk management, accounting, and tax management. That is why the company 's organizational structure is the product-based organization (Buchanan and Huczynsk 2010). The firm hired new employees from students but did not hire much of employees who came other firm. Once employees are hired, the firm offers a lot of education for them before starting job. Generally speaking, in Japanese domestic companies, new employees are required an attitude toward work rather than field of study related to their job (Mestre and Stainer 1997). That is why, most of companies in Japan have a strong education system. New employees can learn many
This paper is written about "learning in an organization", in other words, how to transfer knowledge between people who work in the organization. The authors of this study propose that knowledge has two perspectives; one is tacit knowledge and the other is explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), and these two kinds of knowledge can be managed in an organization, which Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) called SECI model. The theory is put on a situation which I joined. I managed business meeting and made a database which tacit knowledge senior colleagues have, is transferred explicit knowledge. The theory can explain dynamism between two knowledge. However, the theory cannot explain practical situation. On the other hand, a concept of Communities of Practice (Wenger 2002) indicates practical situation. As a conclusion, SECI model is not practical concept in terms of how to manage knowledge transfer from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, that is why other concept should be combined and one of which is a concept of Communities of Practice.
Knowledge losing:
I worked in Japan Business Management.inc, healthcare consultancy company for five years, which employs about 360 workers. The company located in Osaka, the second biggest city in Japan. Consulting domains of this company are making strategy, human recourse management, risk management, accounting, and tax management. That is why the company 's organizational structure is the product-based organization (Buchanan and Huczynsk 2010). The firm hired new employees from students but did not hire much of employees who came other firm. Once employees are hired, the firm offers a lot of education for them before starting job. Generally speaking, in Japanese domestic companies, new employees are required an attitude toward work rather than field of study related to their job (Mestre and Stainer 1997). That is why, most of companies in Japan have a strong education system. New employees can learn many
References: Bratianu, C (2010), 'A Critical Analysis of Nonaka 's Model of Knowledge Dynamics ', Proceedings Of The European Conference On Intellectual Capital, pp. 115-120 Bratianu, C Buchanan, D, A. Huczynsk, A, A. (2010). Organizational Behaviour 7edn. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Corso, M., Giacobbe, A. & Martini, A. (2009), "Designing and managing business communities of practice", Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 73-89. Gueldenberg, S. & Helting, H. (2007), "Bridging 'The Great Divide ': Nonaka 's Synthesis of 'Western ' and 'Eastern ' Knowledge Concepts Reassessed", Organization, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 101-122. Hemmasi, M. & Csanda, C.M. (2009), "The Effectiveness of Communities of Practice: An Empirical Study", Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 262-279,168. Iverson, J.O. & McPhee, R.D. (2002), "Knowledge management in communities of practice", Management Communication Quarterly : McQ, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 259-266. Kimble, C. & Hildreth, P. (2005), "Dualities, distributed communities of practice and knowledge management", Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 102-113. Lave, J. Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, M. & Gao, F. (2003), "Why Nonaka highlights tacit knowledge: A critical review", Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 6-14. Mestre, M., Stainer, A. & Stainer, L. (1997), "Employee orientation - the Japanese approach", Employee Relations, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 443-456. Nada, K.K., Kakabadse, A. & Kouzmin, A. (2003), "Reviewing the knowledge management literature: Towards a toxonomy", Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 75-91. Nonaka, I. Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I. Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of "Ba": Building A Foundation For Knowledge Creation, California Management Review, Vol.40, no.3, pp.40-54. Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Krishnaveni, R. Sujatha, R. (2012). Communities of Practice: An Influencing Factor for Effective Knowledge Transfer in Organizations, The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.10, no.1, pp.26-40 Wenger, E