Fernando Olivera

Memory Systems In Organizations: An Empirical Investigation Of Mechanisms For Knowledge Collection, Storage And Access

This research examines the concept of organizational memory in the context of multi-unit organizations. It addresses the question: how do organizations collect, store and provide access to their experiential knowledge? I develop a framework for organizational memory in geographically distributed settings based on the concept of organizational memory systems and empirically assess the usefulness of this framework in the context of a multinational, business consulting organization. Multiple memory systems were identified, including social networks, knowledge centers and various computer-based systems. I present and discuss findings with respect to the characteristics and perceived effectiveness of these memory systems.

Contribution behaviors in distributed environments

In this paper, we develop a framework for understanding contribution behaviors, which we define as voluntary acts of helping others by providing information. Our focus is on why and how people make contributions in geographically distributed organizations where contributions occur primarily through information technologies. We develop a model of contribution behaviors that delineates three mediating mechanisms: (1) awareness; (2) searching and matching; and (3) formulation and delivery. We specify the cognitive and motivational elements involved in these mechanisms and the role of information technology in facilitating contributions. We discuss the implications of our framework for developing theory and for designing technology to support contribution behaviors.

Group-to-Individual Transfer of Learning Cognitive and Social Factors

We investigate the effects of group collaboration on member learning in a laboratory experiment. We test the hypothesis, based on theoretical ideas from research on cooperative learning, that groups provide opportunities for transfer of learning to individuals and that such learning occurs via cognitive and social processes that arise during group interaction. Eighty-six students solved puzzles either individually, in groups, or individually while observing a group. Analysis of subsequent individual performance on a transfer task showed that participating in or observing a group caused transfer of learning, whereas working alone did not. Furthermore, results suggest that transfer of learning occurred mainly due to cognitive, but not social, factors. Implications for structuring group work are discussed.

Reflections on Organizational Memory and Forgetting

Organizational memory plays a central role in theories of organizational learning and forgetting. However, we still know little about how knowledge becomes embedded in organizational memory or the reasons and processes through which organizational memory decays. The objective of this article is to clarify the relationship between organizational memory and forgetting, and identify areas that require development if we are to improve our understanding of these constructs. Specifically, we point to the importance of theorizing about (a) the dynamic nature of organizational memory and forgetting, (b) the role of time in theories and research of organizational memory and forgetting, and (c) the processes through which individuals maintain, discard, or remember knowledge, including the dynamics of power.

Knowledge acquisition in virtual teams

In this chapter, we discuss how individuals acquire knowledge through group experiences and how technologies used by virtual teams will affect this process. The effect of groups on individual member learning is a fundamental, but relatively unexplored, aspect of group effectiveness. We propose that group members can acquire knowledge in two ways: via other group members and through products that groups generate. With respect to acquisition via group members, we emphasize how collaborative processes provide opportunities for learning. With respect to knowledge transfer via group products, we pay particular attention to the mechanisms by which group members store knowledge. We address how information and communication technologies can influence these mechanisms for knowledge acquisition when working in virtual teams. In general, our review suggests that there are numerous challenges to knowledge acquisition in distributed groups. We conclude by discussing methods for enhancing opportunities for learning in virtual teams.

Managers and Organizational Forgetting: A Synthesis.

Purpose This paper aims to evaluate how managers influence accidental and intentional organizational forgetting, i.e. knowledge depreciation, knowledge loss and unlearning. Design/methodology/approach The literature was reviewed based on predetermined search terms to identify peer-reviewed articles published in English and available in full-text format from the EBSCOhost and Google Scholar databases. Empirical and theoretical contributions were included. Additional articles, books and book chapters were manually selected and included based on recent reviews and syntheses of organizational forgetting work. Findings Findings revealed that managers contributed to preventing accidental knowledge depreciation and loss and preserving organizational memory. With respect to intentional forgetting, findings revealed contradictory positions: on the one hand, managers contributed to the disbandment of existing beliefs and frames of reference, but on the other hand, they preserved existing knowledge and power structures. Research limitations/implications The study was limited by the accessibility of subscribed journals and databases, research scope and time span. Practical implications This paper provides useful guidelines to managers who need to reduce the disruptive effects of accidental forgetting or plan intentional forgetting, i.e. managed unlearning. Originality/value This paper represents a first attempt to review and define the influence of managers on organizational forgetting.

From ‘Theory Light’ to Theorizing: A Reaction to Avison and Malaurent

The field of information systems (IS), like all academic disciplines, must periodically pause and reflect on its policies, practices, and underlying assumptions. Over the years, various discussions have helped us think about, among other things, the nature of rigor in our research (e.g., Dube and Pare, 2003; Straub et al., 2004), the importance of relevance to practice in addition to rigor (e.g., Darke et al., 1998; Robey and Markus, 1998; Applegate and King, 1999; Benbasat and Zmud, 1999; Davenport and Markus, 1999; Lee, 1999; Rosemann and Vessey, 2008; Straub and Ang, 2011), and the value of diverse approaches (both methodological and theoretical) to our developing understanding of the phenomena we study (e.g., Robey, 1996; Lee, 1999, 2011; Benbasat and Zmud, 2003; Mingers, 2004; Davison and Martinsons, 2011; Galliers, 2011; Myers, 2011).

Learning with Laptops: Information Technology and the Transformation of an MBA Program

Laptop computers and wireless networks are becoming part of the landscape of many MBA programs, finding their way into the innermost sanctum of academia: the classroom. The consequences of introducing information technologies in the educational environment, however, are far from clear. Through the lens of Bourdieu’s theory of practice, we explore how a mandatory laptop program was woven into the institutional fabric of an MBA program and the means by which information technologies altered student practices. We attend to how IT was implicated in a struggle between the students and the faculty for control of classroom use of laptops and networks. In revealing the variety of interests at stake and the different logic deployed by students and faculty in this confrontation, we hope to open a space for the mutual recognition of opposing viewpoints and for the possibility of joint ownership of the problem.

Commentaries on the role of theory

Whether a theory is an instance of ‘theory light’ or ‘theory is king’ depends on what is meant by ‘theory’ and, ultimately, ‘science’ in the first place. I offer a classification of science where one dimension is sciences that describe or explain either (1) what exists or has existed or (2) how to create what does not now exist or has not existed before, and the other dimension is sciences that study either (1) the physical world or (2) the world of people and their institutions. The resulting four science categories invite the consideration of different forms of theory based on their different purposes, as well as the consideration that the path to success traveled by theory in one science category is not necessarily generalizable and appropriate to, much less much less replicable by, theory in another science category. I provide the example of an ethnographically based theory that can be seen as ‘theory light’ or ‘theory rich, ‘ or even as an illustration of ‘theory is king, ‘ depending on the science category in which the theory is considered.