International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 2(2), 209–225
Clustering Organizational Learning
Capability Indices for Knowledge
Sharing in Different Segments
of the Firm
Masoomeh Alikhani
Mazandaran University of Science and Technology, Iran
Hamed Fazlollahtabar
Iran University of Science and Technology, Iran
Iraj Mahdavi
Mazandaran University of Science and Technology, Iran
Since maximization of learning and organizational learning capabilities is the
most important element for the success of knowledge management in each
organization, this paper focuses on the dimensions of organizational learn-
ing capability. We suggest a mathematical clustering structure of dimensions
according to their effect on the learning capability for different parts of the
organization in order to obtain the highest level of learning capability in an
organization. The proposed mathematical clustering aims to relate the needs
of different sections of a firm to the corresponding learning capabilities.
Keywords: organizational learning capability; knowledge management;
clustering
Introduction
Organizational learning is a process through which an organization will learn
more items. Such learning means any changes in the organizational mod-
els, which may lead to recovery or maintenance of an organizational function
(Alegre & Chiva, 2008). Jerez Gómez, Céspedes-Lorente, and Valle Cabrera
(2004) also defined organizational learning as the creation, procurement,
knowledge transfer and integration capability, and modification of organiza-
tional behavior for reflection of a new position with the improvement view-
point of organizational function. Templeton, Lewis, and Snyder (2002) be-
lieved that organizational learning is a collection of organizational functions,
such as learning knowledge, distribution and interpretation of information
and memory consciously and/or non-consciously with positive effects on or-
ganizational changes. Learning capability is an important factor for further
growth and innovation of an organization (Aad et al., 2011). Organizational
learning capability is a collection of resources and/or tangible and intan-
www.issbs.si/press/ISSN/2232-5697/2_209-225.pdf
210 Masoomeh Alikhani, Hamed Fazlollahtabar, and Iraj Mahdavi
gible skills for which it is necessary to also use competitive advantages.
An organizational learning capability is a sign of creation capacity and com-
bination of ideas in an effective way in contact with various organizational
borders and through special managerial methods and innovations (Rashidi,
Habibi, & Jafari Farsani, 2010). Ulrich, Von Glinow, and Jick (1993) also
considered organizational learning capabilities as the capacity of managers
in an organization for further production and combination of important and
effective ideas. There are different studies for measuring the organizational
learning capabilities at industrial and nonindustrial places among which are
also Aydın, Zaim, and Ceylan (2009) and Hsu and Fang (2009). Aghdasi and
Bafruei (2009) studied the organizational learning levels at different hospi-
tals. In Aghdasi and Bafruei’s (2009) research, knowledge transfer and in-
tegration capability had the highest mean followed by the systems perspec-
tive, openness and experimentation, and managerial obligation capabilities.
Furthermore, a study was performed in India by Bhatnagar, which focused on
the measuring of the organizational learning capability of managers. Accord-
ing to the results, IT managers and multinational companies had the high-
est rate of organizational learning capability, while engineering managers
had the lowest rate (Bhatnagar, 2006). Based on the reviewed literature on
organizational learning capability (OLC), learning capability includes follow-
ing ten dimensions: Risk taking, Interaction with the external environment,
Dialogue, Participative decision making, Managerial commitment, Systems
perspective, Openness and experimentation, Knowledge transfer and inte-
gration, Teamwork, Demonstration of mission and goals. OLC is defined as
the organizational and managerial characteristics or factors that facilitate
the organizational learning process or allow an organization to learn (Di-
bella, Nevis, & Gould, 1996; Goh & Richards, 1997; Hult & Ferrell, 1997).
Additionally, organizational learning is seen as a dynamic process based
on knowledge, which implies moving among different levels of action, go-
ing from the individual to the group level, and then to the organizational
level and back again (Huber, 1991). This process stems from the knowl-
edge acquisition of the individual, and progresses with the exchange and
integration of this knowledge until a corpus of collective knowledge is cre-
ated (Hedberg, 1981) and embedded in the organizational processes and
culture. This collective knowledge, which is stored in the so-called organi-
zational memory (Walsh & Ungson, 1991), has an impact on the type of
knowledge acquired and the way in which it is interpreted and shared. What
an individual learns in an organization greatly depends on what is already
known by other members of the organization-in other words, on the common
knowledge base (Simon, 1991). In this paper, we focused on the dimen-
sions of organizational learning capability for obtaining the highest level of
learning capability. Increasing learning capability facilitates the knowledge
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Clustering Organizational Learning Capability Indices 211
sharing process in different parts of an organization. We should allow the
transfer, interpretation, and integration of knowledge in an organization. In
order to obtain the maximum level of learning capability in an organization,
we should implement each dimension of learning capability that has the
greatest effect on learning capability when compared with other dimension
parts. For this, we cluster the dimensions of learning capability in different
segments based on the effect of particular dimensions.
Organizational Learning Capability
Niece and his colleagues were the first to use the concept of capability;
namely, they used it as a concept of recourses and abilities. Ashkenas
(1995) introduced the organizational learning capability as follows: ‘The abil-
ity of an organization to learn from its experiences and taking them through
times and borders.’ An organization incapable of learning tends to make
adjustments to its own solution, instead of investing and devoting time in
changes and improvements. The learning organization or prescriptive liter-
ature mainly focuses on the development of normative models for the cre-
ation of a learning organization. Jerez Gómez, Céspedes-Lorente, and Valle
Cabrera (2005) suggested three basic concepts: (1) Knowledge, its acquisi-
tion, use, distribution and integration in an organization become one of the
critical strategic resources and the base of learning in an organization. Ac-
quiring and distributing knowledge is due to the internal changes that may
be the result of both conceptual, as well as behavioral levels. (2) Learning
capability is based on the existence of a collective ego that helps us to see
the organization as a system whose every member should to try and co-
operate to reach the desirable results. (3) Because this type of learning is
mostly based on time and resources, the value and stability of competitive
advantage is higher. This learning needs open atmosphere for ideas and
high levels of experience. One way of preparing for an open atmosphere is
to devote a room to new ideas, together with improvement, and renovation
of individual knowledge. Learning capability is a complex multidimensional
construct. Although various studies have identified different dimensions or
components (Senge, 1990; Slater & Narver, 1995; Lei, Slocum, & Pitts,
2000), most do so from a theoretical point of view, consequenly only few
actually design a measurement scale based on the identified dimensions.
Goh and Richard’s study (1997) identified five dimensions (clarity of purpose
and mission, leadership commitment and empowerment, experimentation
and rewards, transfer of knowledge, teamwork, and group problem solving)
and established a learning scale made up of 21 items. The questionnaire
was sent to the employees of four organizations, namely two public and
two private. The results enabled the authors to establish the differences
among the firms with regard to their learning ability, concluding that the pri-
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2013
212 Masoomeh Alikhani, Hamed Fazlollahtabar, and Iraj Mahdavi
vate companies, operating in less-regulated environments, score highest in
different dimensions. Hult and Ferrell’s study (1997) is more extensive with
regard to the validation of the scale they designed. The scale was formed of
23 items that attempted to measure the four dimensions they considered
a part of organizational learning capability (team orientation, systems ori-
entation, learning orientation, and memory orientation). As opposed to Goh
and Richards’s work (1997), Jerez Gómez et al. (2005) used a large sample
of firms and paid particular attention to verifying the reliability, the content
validity, and the convergent and discriminate validity of the scale, describ-
ing the whole process in detail. They developed a measurement scale for
organizational learning capability supported by the results of a validation
study, which included a sample of 111 Spanish firms from the chemical
industry. They extracted four factors of organizational learning, which they
called organizational learning capability. These four dimensions are: Man-
agerial commitment, Systems perspective, Openness and experimentation,
Knowledge transfer and integration. Chiva (2004) analyzed both mentioned
works (Goh & Richards; Jerez Gómez et al., 2005) in order to determine the
facilitating factors of organizational learning. Based on this comprehensive
analysis, Chiva, Alegre, and Lapiedra (2007) developed an OLC measure-
ment instrument that perceives OLC as a multidimensional concept, the
dimensions of which are: experimentation, risk taking, interaction with the
external environment, dialogue and participative decision making. On one
hand, these five dimensions are essential enablers of the organizational
learning process, while on the other hand, they represent the OLC of a
particular firm.
Organizational Learning Capability Dimensions
Risk taking Risk taking is understood as the tolerance of ambiguity, uncer-
tainty, and errors. Hedberg (1981) proposes a range of activities to facilitate
organizational learning, amongst which the design of environments that as-
sume risk taking and accept mistakes is emphasized. Accepting or taking
risks involves the possibility of mistakes and failure occurrences. Sitkin
(1996) goes as far as to state that failure is an essential requirement for
effective organizational learning and to this end examines the advantages
and disadvantages of success and errors. If the organization aims to pro-
mote short-term stability and performance, then success is recommended,
since it tends to encourage the maintenance of status quo. According to
Sitkin (1996), the benefits brought about by error or risk tolerance, prompt-
ing of attention to problems and the search for solutions, ease of problem
recognition and interpretation, and a variety of organizational responses.
Since the appearance of this work, many authors have underlined the im-
portance of risk taking and accepting mistakes in order for organizations to
learn (Popper & Lipshitz, 2000).
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Clustering Organizational Learning Capability Indices 213
Interaction with the external environment We define this dimension as the
scope of relationships with the external environment. The external environ-
ment of an organization is defined as the factors beyond the organization’s
direct control of influence. It consists of industrial agents, such as com-
petitors, and the economic, social, monetary, and political/legal systems.
Environmental characteristics play an important role in learning and their
influence on organizational learning has been studied by a number of re-
searchers (Bapuji & Crossan, 2004)]. Relations and connections with the
environment are very important, since the organization attempts to evolve
simultaneously with its changing environment. Hedberg (1981) considers
the environment as the prime mover behind organizational learning. More
turbulent environments generate organizations with greater needs and de-
sires to learn (Popper & Lipshitz, 2000). According to Nevis, Dibella, and
Gould (1995), researchers have in recent years stressed the importance of
observing, opening up to and interacting with the environment.
Dialogue In particular, authors from the social perspective highlighted
the importance of dialogue and communication for organizational learning
(Brown & Duguid, 1991). Dialogue is defined as sustained collective inquiry
into the processes, assumptions, and certainties that make up everyday
experience (Isaacs, 1993). Schein (1993) considers dialogue as the ba-
sic process for building common understanding in that it allows one to
see the hidden meanings of words by revealing these hidden meanings in
our own communication. The vision of organizational learning, as a social
construction, implies the development of a common understanding, start-
ing from the social base and relationships between individuals (Brown &
Duguid, 1991). Nevis et al. (1995) argue that learning is a function of spon-
taneous daily interactions between individuals. The chance to meet people
from other areas and groups increases learning. Similarly, Goh and Richards
(1997) advocate teamwork and problem solving in groups with particular
emphasis on multi-functional teams.
By working in a team, knowledge can be shared and developed amongst
its members. Easterby-Smith, Crossan, and Nicolini (2000) hold that re-
cent literature is moving away from the vision of an integrating dialogue in
which consensus is sought towards one that seeks pluralism and even con-
flict. Oswick, Anthony, Keenoy, and Mangham (2000) claim that authentic
dialogue fosters organizational learning, since it creates plural perceptions
rather than suppresses them. Individuals or groups with different visions
who meet to solve a problem or work together create a dialogue commu-
nity.
Participative decision making Participative decision making refers to the
level of influence employees have in the decision-making process (Cotton,
Vollrath, Foggat, Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings, 1988). Organizations implement
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2013
214 Masoomeh Alikhani, Hamed Fazlollahtabar, and Iraj Mahdavi
participative decision making to benefit from the motivational effects of in-
creased employee involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational com-
mitment (Scott-Ladd & Chan, 2004). Scott-Ladd and Chan (2004) provide
evidence to suggest that participative decision making enables better ac-
cess to information and improves the quality and ownership of decision
outcomes. Parnell and Crandall (2000) also maintain that divulging infor-
mation is a requirement for participative decision making. Subordinates are
assumed to be informed in order to participate efficiently. The above re-
viewed literatures considered participative decision making as one of the
aspects that can facilitate learning.
Managerial commitment Management should recognize the relevance of
learning, thus developing a culture that promotes the acquisition, creation,
and transfer of knowledge as fundamental values (Stata & Almond, 1989).
Management should articulate a strategic view of learning, making it a cen-
tral visible element and a valuable tool with an influence on long term re-
sults (Slocum, McGill, & Lei, 1994). Likewise, management should ensure
that the firm’s employees understand the importance of learning and be-
come involved in its achievement, considering it an active part of the firm’s
success. Finally, management should drive the process of change, taking
the responsibility for creating an organization that is able to regenerate it-
self and face up to new challenges (Williams, 2001).
Systems perspective Systems perspective entails uniting the organiza-
tion’s members around a common identity. Various individuals, depart-
ments, and areas of the firm should have a clear view of the organization’s
objectives and understand how they can help in their development. The
organization should be considered as a system that is made up of differ-
ent parts, each with its own function, that act in a coordinated manner.
Viewing the firm as a system implicitly involves recognizing the importance
of relationships based on the exchange of information and services and
infers the development of shared mental models. Inasmuch as organiza-
tional learning implies shared knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs, it will
be enhanced by the existence of a common language and joint action by
all individuals involved in the process. Thus, the presence of a common
language favors knowledge integration-a crucial aspect in the development
of organizational learning (Grant, 1996). In this way, organizational learning
goes beyond the employees’ individual learning and takes on a collective
nature (McGill, Slocum, & Lei, 1992).
Openness and experimentation Our unit of analysis is generative or double-
loop learning, which requires a climate of openness that welcomes the ar-
rival of new ideas and points of view, both internal and external, allowing
individual knowledge to be constantly renewed, widened, and improved. To
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Clustering Organizational Learning Capability Indices 215
create a climate of openness, there needs to be a previous commitment
to the cultural and functional diversity, as well as a readiness to accept all
types of opinions and experiences and to learn from them, avoiding the ego-
centric attitude of considering one’s own values, beliefs, and experiences
to be better than the rest (McGill et al., 1992). Openness to new ideas,
coming from within the organization or from outside of it, favors experimen-
tation, an essential aspect of generative learning, inasmuch as it implies
the search for innovative flexible solutions to current and future problems,
based on the possible use of different methods and procedures. Experimen-
tation requires a culture that promotes creativity, an enterprising ability, and
readiness to take controlled risks, supporting the idea that one can learn
from one’s mistakes.
Knowledge transfer and integration This dimension refers to two closely
linked processes, which occur simultaneously rather than successively: in-
ternal transfer and integration of knowledge. The efficacy of these two pro-
cesses rests on the previous existence of absorptive capacity (Cohen &
Levinthal, 1990), implying the lack of internal barriers that impedes the
transfer of best practices within the firm (Szulanski, 1996). Transfer im-
plies internal spreading of knowledge acquired at an individual level, mainly
through conversations and interaction among individuals. Fluid communi-
cation relies mainly on the existence of agile information systems that
guarantee the accuracy and availability of the information. With regard to
dialogue and debate, work teams and personnel meetings can be ideal
forums in which to openly share ideas. The main role of work teams in
developing organizational learning is frequently pointed out in the litera-
ture, with particular emphasis placed on multidisciplinary and multifunction
teams. Team learning places the group above the individual, allowing the
transfer, interpretation, and integration of the knowledge acquired individu-
ally. This integration leads to the creation of a collective corpus of knowl-
edge rooted in organizational culture, work processes, and the remaining
elements that form the ‘organizational memory.’ Thus, knowledge can be
subsequently recovered and applied to different situations, guaranteeing
the firm’s constant learning in spite of the natural rotation of its members
(Simon, 1991).
Teamwork In today’s complex world, individuals need to help each other
accomplish the organizational objectives. Structures and systems in an
organization need to encourage teamwork and group problem solving by
employees and reduce the dependency on upper management. Further-
more, teams need to have the ability to work cross-functionally. By work-
ing in teams, knowledge can be shared among organizational members,
consequently contributing to better understanding of other individuals, their
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2013
216 Masoomeh Alikhani, Hamed Fazlollahtabar, and Iraj Mahdavi
Table 1 Items Composing the OLC Scale
Dimension/measurement items Literature source
Risk taking
People are encouraged to take risks in this organization Amabile (1996)
People here often venture into unknown territory. Isaksen, Lauer, & Ekvall
(1999)
Interaction with the external environment
It is part of the work of all staff to collect, bring back, and
report information about what is going on outside the
company.
Pedler, Burgoyne, &
Boydell (1997)
There are systems and procedures for receiving, collating,
and sharing information from outside the company.
Pedler et al. (1997)
People are encouraged to interact with the environment:
competitors, customers, technological institutes,
universities, suppliers etc.
Pedler et al. (1997)
Dialogue
Employees are encouraged to communicate. Templeton et al. (2002)
There is a free and open communication within my work
group
Amabile (1996)
Managers facilitate communication Pedler et al. (1997)
Cross-functional teamwork is a common practice here. Hult and Ferrell (1997)
Participative decision making
Managers in this organization frequently involve employees
in important decisions
Goh and Richards (1997)
Policies are significantly influenced by the view of the
employees
Pedler et al. (1997)
People feel involved in main company decisions Pedler et al. (1997)
Continued on the next page
needs, and how they work in different parts of the organization, thus en-
couraging knowledge transfer.
Demonstration of mission and goals The organization, as a whole and each
unit within it, needs to have a clearly articulated purpose. Employees need
to understand this purpose and the contribution of their work toward the at-
tainment of the organization’s mission. In addition, the organization needs
to promote employee commitment to these goals. If the employees under-
stand the gap between the vision and the current state, they can strive to
overcome that gap (Mohrman, Mohrman, & Cohen, 1995).
Problem definition and modeling
Organizational learning capability has many dimensions. Here we have in-
volved ten dimensions of OLC dimensions for better explanation. We can
choose each set of OLC dimensions. In order to obtain the maximum level
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Clustering Organizational Learning Capability Indices 217
Table 1 Continued from the previous page
Dimension/measurement items Literature source
Team work and group problem solving
The current approach of the organization encourages the
personnel to solve problems cooperatively, before
discussing them with managers
Goh and Richards (1997)
We often cannot form unofficial groups to solve the
problems of the organization
Goh and Richards (1997)
Majority of problem solving groups are members of
different operating environments
Goh and Richards (1997)
Demonstration of mission and goals
There is a widespread support and acceptance of the
Organization’s mission statement.
Goh and Richards (1997)
I do not understand how the mission of the organization is
to be achieved (r).
Goh and Richards (1997)
The organization’s mission statement identifies the values
to which all employees must conform
Goh and Richards (1997)
We have opportunities for self -assessment with respect to
goal attainment.
Goh and Richards (1997)
Managerial commitment
The managers frequently involve their staff in important
decision making processes.
Jerez Gómez et al. (2004)
Employee learning is considered more of an expense than
an investment.
The firm’s management looks favorably on carrying out
changes in any area to adapt to and/or keep ahead of new
environmental situations.
Employee learning capability is considered a key factor in
this firm
In this firm, innovative ideas that work are rewarded.
Systems perspective
All employees have generalized knowledge regarding this
firm’s objectives.
Jerez Gómez et al. (2004)
All parts that make up this firm (departments, sections,
work teams, and individuals) are well aware of how they
contribute to achieving the overall objectives.
All parts that make up this firm are interconnected, working
together in a coordinated fashion.
Continued on the next page
of learning capability and facilitating knowledge sharing process in different
segments of an organization, we should implement each dimension of OLC
in its fitting part. At first, we should calculate the Weight of each dimension
in each part, to do this; we use k measuring items that exist in OLC litera-
ture. Finally, the dimensions are clustered in different parts of the organiza-
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2013
218 Masoomeh Alikhani, Hamed Fazlollahtabar, and Iraj Mahdavi
Table 1 Continued from the previous page
Dimension/measurement items Literature source
Openness and experimentation
This firm promotes experimentation and innovation as a
way of improving the work processes.
Jerez Gómez et al. (2004)
This firm follows up what other firms in the sector are
doing; adopting practices and techniques it believes to be
useful and interesting.
Experiences and ideas provided by external sources
(advisors, customers, training firms, etc.) are considered a
useful instrument for this firm’s learning.
Part of this firm’s culture is that employees can express
their opinions and make suggestions regarding the
procedures and methods in place for carrying out tasks.
Knowledge transfer and integration
Errors and failures are always discussed and analyzed in
this firm, on all levels.
Jerez Gómez et al. (2004)
Employees have the chance to talk among themselves
about new ideas, programs, and activities that might be of
use to the firm.
In this firm, teamwork is not the usual way to work.
The firm has instruments (manuals, databases, files,
organizational routines, etc.) that allow what has been
learnt in past situations to remain valid, although the
employees are no longer the same.
tion according to their effects and the cost of implementing the aspects and
presented formulas. Then we have considered k implementing methods for
implementing each dimension in each part of the organization. Implement-
ing methods for each dimension are different in different organizations. As
people learn in different ways, there are different styles of organizational
learning; therefore organizations select different implementing methods for
implementing OLC dimensions in different parts according to the features
of industrial environment, adopted strategies, business culture, technology,
available resources and history of the Company. Implementation methods
are determined by the organization’s knowledge management. The organiza-
tion limits total budget, which is considered to have increased the learning
capability of the organization to a maximum value.
Our proposed formulas for clustering are described in four steps:
Step 1: Determining nijkk′
We should measure the weight of implementation item k of dimension i in
part j by measure item k. nijkk′ gives a number between 0 and 100 which is
determined by Knowledge Management Team.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Clustering Organizational Learning Capability Indices 219
Step 2: Calculating wijkk′
According to the amount of nijkk′ , we can determine the numerical value of
k by specifying the weight of implementation item k of dimension i in part j.
Also the organization’s knowledge management team determines the value
of a, b, c, d, α, β, and γ in wijkk′ :
wijkk′ =
⎧⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎨
⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎩
0 nijkk′ < a
α a≤ nijkk′ < a
β b≤ nijkk′ < c
γ c≤ nijkk′ < d
100 nijkk′ ≥ d
. (1)
Step 3: Calculating wijk
Equation (2) shows the calculation of the Weight of implementation item k
of dimension i in part j:
wijk =
∑
k′
wijkk′ . (2)
If the implementation item k of dimension i was j, xijk = 1 so xijk would be
0. For measuring the effect of each dimension on the learning capability of
the organization in each part, we use the measurement items in literature
of organizational learning capability in Table 1.
We have k measurement items and k implementation items for each
dimension. Firstly, to achieve this goal we should examine the amount of
measurement item k′. This value is shown in nijkk′ . nijkk′ , which is a number
between 0 and 100 and is determined by organization’s Knowledge Man-
agement Team. According to the amount of nijkk′ , the organization would
determine the numerical value of measurement item, k to measure the
weight of implementation item k of dimension i in part j. The organization’s
knowledge management team determines the value of a, b, c, d, α, β, and
γ in the function wijkk′ .
Step 4: Mathematical Clustering Model
Equation (3) or objective function maximizes the total effects of dimensions
that are implemented in different parts of an organization:
max
∑
i
∑
j
∑
k
wijkxijk. (3)
Because of capital limitation, each organization should invest in the di-
mensions of organizational learning capability, which have the greatest ef-
fect on learning capability of the organization to achieve the highest level of
learning capability.
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2013
220 Masoomeh Alikhani, Hamed Fazlollahtabar, and Iraj Mahdavi
Table 2 Values of Fixed Variables
Part j Max. cost of implementing dim. in part j The minimize effect in part j
1 16000$ 70
2 14000$ 75
3 24000$ 70
4 14000$ 70
5 18000$ 80
Table 3 Values of Constant Coefficients
α β γ a b c d
27 45 67 13 38 53 79
∑
i
∑
k
cijkxijk ≤ Aj ∀j. (4)
This equation certifies that the total implementation cost for activating
dimensions in part j is limited to a maximum value.
∑
i
∑
j
∑
k
cijkxijk ≤B. (5)
This equation ensures that the total budget of the organization, which is
considered to have increased the learning capability of the organization, is
limited to a maximum value.
∑
i
∑
k
wijkxijk ≥Mj ∀j. (6)
This equation indicates that the total effect of dimensions in each part is
limited to a minimum value. When the amount of a measured item reduces,
its effect will be reduced and thus the total effect on the learning capability
of the organization will be reduced. Since we have limited the total effect to
a minimum value in each part of the organization, more dimensions will be
active and so the total cost will be increased.
Computational Results
We have considered an organization including 5 segments, 3 measurement
items and 3 implementation items for each dimension. The total budget of
the organization is allocated to increase the learning capability, the total
implementation cost for implementing dimensions in part j and the total ef-
fects in each part are shown in Table 2. Constant coefficients, α,β,γ,a,b,c
for calculation of wijk are displayed in Table 3. These coefficients are de-
termined by the organization’s knowledge management team. We choose
nijkk′ and cijk as follows: 10≤ nijkk′ ≤ 87, 1800≤ cijk ≤ 4000. We solved the
presented model using lingo software. Implemented dimensions of organi-
zation’s different parts are displayed in Table 4.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Clustering Organizational Learning Capability Indices 221
Table 4 Output Result
k = 1 k = 2 k = 3
i j = 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
9 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Dimensions the organization should consider in each segment of the firm
are displayed in Table 4 (xijk = 1). Implementing method of dimensions in
each part is shown in Table 4. We have considered 3 implementing methods
for each dimension (k = 1,2,3). Implementing methods for each dimension
are different in different organizations.
Conclusions
This paper proposed a mathematical clustering model to disseminate the
organizational learning capability dimensions within the context of knowl-
edge management in firms. The mathematical clustering technique has de-
termined the allocation of indices, according to their effect on the learning
capability, to different parts of the organization in order to obtain the highest
level of learning capability in an organization. We developed an algorithm to
imply the steps of the clustering method. Computational results confirmed
the effectiveness of the model. The findings confirmed that learning capabil-
ities producing more effects are in a cluster, related to one specific segment
of the firm.
References
Aad, G., Abbott, B., Abdallah, J., Abdelalim, A. A., Abdesselam, A., Abdinov,
O., & Allport, P. P. (2011). Luminosity determination in pp collisions at
s = 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The European Physical
Journal C, 71(4), 1–37.
Aghdasi, M., & Bafruei, K. (2009). Measuring level of organisational learning
capabilities in hospitals. International Journal of Industrial Engineering &
Production Management, 19(4), 71–78.
Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of organizational learning
capability on product innovation performance: An empirical test. Techno-
vation, 28(6), 315–326.
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2013
222 Masoomeh Alikhani, Hamed Fazlollahtabar, and Iraj Mahdavi
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations (Harvard Busi-
ness School Background Note 396–239). Harvard Business School, Cam-
bridge, MA.
Ashkenas, R. (1995). The boundary less organization: Breaking the chains of
organizational structure. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
Aydın, M. A., Zaim, A. H., and Ceylan, K. G. (2009). A hybrid intrusion detec-
tion system design for computer network security. Computers & Electrical
Engineering, 35(3), 517–526.
Bapuji, H., and Crossan, M. (2004), From raising questions to providing an-
swers: Reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning,
35(4), 397–417.
Bhatnagar, J. (2006). Measuring organizational learning capability in Indian
managers and establishing firm performance linkage: An empirical analy-
sis. The Learning Organization, 13(5), 416–433.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-
of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.
Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.
Chiva, R. (2004). Repercussions of complex adaptive systems on product
design management. Technovation, 24(9), 707–711.
Chiva, R., Alegre, J., & Lapiedra, R. (2007). Measuring organizational learning
capability among the workforce. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3),
224–242.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspec-
tive on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1),
128–152.
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Foggat, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K.
R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.
Academy of Management, 13(1), 8–22.
Dibella, A. J., Nevis, E. C., & Gould, J. M. (1996). Understanding organi-
zational learning capability. Journal of Management Studies, 33(3), 361–
379.
Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learn-
ing: Debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies,
37(5), 783–796.
Goh, S., & Richards, G. (1997). Benchmarking the learning capability of orga-
nizations. European Management Journal, 15(5), 575–583.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Or-
ganizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science,
7(4), 375–387.
Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. C. Nystrom &
W. Starbuck (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Design (pp. 3–27). Oxford,
England: Handbook of Organizational Design.
Hsu, Y. H., & Fang, W. (2009). Intellectual capital and new product develop-
ment performance: The mediating role of organizational learning capabil-
ity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(5), 664–677.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Clustering Organizational Learning Capability Indices 223
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and
the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
Hult, G. T. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1997). Global organizational learning capacity
in purchasing: Construct and measurement. Journal of Business Research,
40(2), 97–111.
Isaacs, W. (1993), Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning,
Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24–39.
Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., & Ekvall, G. (1999). Situational outlook question-
naire: A measure of the climate for creativity and change. Psychological
Reports, 85(2), 665–674.
Jerez Gómez, P., Céspedes Lorente, J., & Valle Cabrera, R. (2004). Training
practices and organisational learning capability: Relationship and implica-
tions. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(2/4), 234–256.
Jerez Gomez, P., Céspedes Lorente, J., & Valle Cabrera, R. (2005). Organiza-
tional learning capability: A proposal of measurement. Journal of Business
Research, 58(6), 715–725.
Lei, D., Slocum, J. W., & Pitts, R. A. (2000). Designing organizations for com-
petitive advantage: The power of unlearning and learning. Organizational
Dynamics, 27(3), 24–38.
McGill, M. E., Slocum, J. W., & Lei, D. (1992). Management practices in
learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 5–17.
Mohrman, S. A., Mohrman Jr., A. M., & Cohen, S. G. (1995). Organizing knowl-
edge work systems. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams,
2, 61–91.
Nevis, E., Dibella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding organization
learning systems. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 73–85.
Oswick, C., Anthony, P., Keenoy, T., & Mangham, I. L. (2000). A dialogic anal-
ysis of organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6),
887–901.
Parnell, J. A., & Crandall, W. (2000). Rethinking participative decision making:
A refinement of the propensity for participative decision making scale.
Personnel Review, 30(5), 523–535.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1997). The learning company: A strategy
for sustainable development. London, England: McGraw-Hill.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000), Organizational learning: Mechanism, culture
and feasibility. Management Learning, 31(2), 181–196.
Rashidi, M. M., Habibi, M., & Jafari Farsani, J. (2010). The relationship be-
tween intellectual assets organizational learning capability at the institute
for international energy studies. Management and Human Resources in
the Oil Industry, 11(4), 59–76.
Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning, Orga-
nizational Dynamics, 22(2), 40–51.
Scott-Ladd, B., & Chan, C. C. A. (2004). Emotional intelligence and partici-
pation indecision-making: Strategies for promoting organizational learning
and change. Strategic Change, 13(2), 95–105.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2013
224 Masoomeh Alikhani, Hamed Fazlollahtabar, and Iraj Mahdavi
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organi-
zation Science, 2(1), 125–134.
Sitkin, S. B. (1996). Learning through failure. In M. Cohen & L. Sproull (Eds.),
Organizational Learning (pp. 541–578). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning orga-
nization. The Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.
Slocum, J. W., McGill, M. E., & Lei, D. T. (1994). The new learning strategy:
Anytime, anything, anywhere. Organizational Dynamics, 23(2), 33–47.
Stata, R., & Almond, P. (1989). Organizational learning: The key to manage-
ment innovation. Sloan Management Review, 30(3), 63–74.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the trans-
fer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17,
27–43.
Templeton, G. F., Lewis, B. R., & Snyder, C. A. (2002). Development of a
measure for the organizational learning construct. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 19(2), 175–218.
Ulrich, D., Von Glinow, M. A., & Jick, T. D. (1993). High-impact learning: Build-
ing and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 52-
66.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of
Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.
Williams, A. P. (2001). A Belief-focused process model of organizational learn-
ing. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 67–85.
Masoomeh Alikhani received her MSc of Industrial Engineering at the
Mazandaran University of Science and Technology, Babol, Iran. Her re-
search interests are mathematical modelling and optimization. She pub-
lished several research papers in international journals and conferences.
masoomeh.alikhani@yahoo.com
Hamed Fazlollahtabar received his MSc of Industrial Engineering at the
Mazandaran University of Science and Technology, Babol, Iran. He received
Doctorate awarded from the Gulf University of Science and Technology in
Quantitative Approaches in Electronic Systems. Currently he is a PhD candi-
date of Industrial Engineering at Iran University of Science and Technology,
Tehran, Iran. He is in the editorial board of WASET (World Academy of Sci-
ence Engineering Technology) Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural
and Applied Sciences, reviewer committee of International Conference on
Industrial and Computer Engineering (CIE), and member of the International
Institute of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS). He is also a member of Iran
Elite Council. His research interests are mathematical modeling, optimiza-
tion in knowledge-based systems, and manufacturing systems. He published
over 150 research papers in books, journals and international conferences.
hfazl@iust.ac.ir
Iraj Mahdavi is a Professor of Industrial Engineering at the Mazandaran Uni-
versity of Science and Technology and Vice President of Graduate Studies and
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Clustering Organizational Learning Capability Indices 225
Research. He received his PhD from India in Production Engineering and Post-
Doctorate professor from Hanyang University, Korea. He is also in the editorial
board of four journals. He published over 250 research papers. His research
interests include cellular manufacturing, digital management of industrial en-
terprises, intelligent operation management, and industrial strategy setting.
irajarash@rediffmail.com
This paper is published under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2013