Multi-Conceptual Theoretical Framework
2.4. Organizational learning and knowledge creation: Towards a geography of learning
27
phronetic research mode, and becoming an actor rather than a bystander in the UCLG case study, is a powerful way to contribute to transformative planning practice on the continent for the researcher.
Having shifted the focus of the conceptual lenses from the first broader philosophical paradigm to the second more focused urban planning lens, the aspect of city-to-city learning is discussed in the next section. This is done in order to help frame a better understanding of the learning processes that city planning and development practitioners are engaged in, as they begin to craft new visions for their cities and towns in Africa.
2.4. Organizational learning and knowledge creation: Towards a geography of
28
complexities of city-to-city learning processes in post-colonial Africa has been more conceptually challenging. In navigating the organizational learning minefield, it has become clear that the bias in the literature is around learning in private institutions and specifically in firms, with very little adaptation of what organizational learning means for local government generally. This point is emphasized by Campbell (2012a) who acknowledges that not much has been written about deliberate city learning itself. Whilst important theoretical contributions like Macfarlane's Learning the City (2011) and Landry's Creative City (2000) do view cities in the light of collective action, they clearly do not sufficiently explore the “detailed mechanics of learning” (Campbell, 2012a: 55).
In order to develop a useful conceptual framework that will help gain better insights into the nature of city-to-city learning, especially for the southern African context, it is important to first obtain conceptual clarity on the notions of organizational learning and knowledge creation. Lyles (2014), in examining the relationship between these equally elusive concepts, argues that these two processes cannot be separated and are, in fact, mutually dependent. Kane and Alavi’s (2007) interpretation of organizational learning as a dynamic process of creating knowledge and transferring it where it is needed and used is, however, most instructive. In the case study this would be seen as eThekwini Municipality planners and facilitators reflecting on their process of municipal visioning and packaging this information in a way that can be best transferred to their colleagues - who have themselves identified the need for the learning and will be able to utilize it in their respective organizations.
Key proponents of knowledge creation theory such as Nonaka (1994) and Sawhney and Prandelli (2000) acknowledge the intertwined nature of three components: (i) knowledge processes, (ii) knowledge assets, and (iii) context. Whilst the processes of knowledge creation both feed on as well as produce output knowledge assets - such as expertise, teams, patents or databases - recently writers have been making the case for a more detailed analysis of these knowledge assets as they could lead to key insights around how practitioners apply these assets so that results are achieved for their respective organizations (Shu et al., 2012). Of greater relevance to this study, however, is that in addition to process characteristics and assets, von Krogh and Geilinger (2014: 156) in reviewing the work of Nonaka and Konno (1998) note that knowledge creation processes are
29
embedded in the contexts or “spaces” of organizations, which can be either physical or virtual.
Nonaka and von Krogh (2009) recognize that the process of organizational knowledge creation involves amplifying knowledge in social contexts, and selectively connecting it to existing knowledge in the organization. This new dimension of amplification and adaptation of knowledge to suit the local context is important to bear in mind, as the planning and development situations in Durban, Namibia and Malawi are context dependent.
Von Krogh and Geilinger (2014) in making a compelling case for reviving the debate on physical space in knowledge creation theory, bemoan the fact that research on the physical places from which organizational knowledge creation emerges has lost prominence due to the increasing attention being paid to virtual places. Focusing on physical space, they note that the places for knowledge creation are bounded sites existing either within or across organizational boundaries, as depicted in Figure 2.2 below.
Figure 2.2: The spaces of knowledge creation (von Grogh & Geilinger, 2014: 156)
In unpacking Von Krogh and Geilinger’s (2014: 156) conceptualization of how organizations learn as expressed in the Figure 2.2 above, is the interesting notion of understanding how knowledge flows informally in what is regarded as an “eco-system of organizations that are in geographically proximate spaces”. Borrowing from the environmental sciences, the authors suggest that the
30
geography of learning is best appreciated when acknowledging these complex two-way informal flows of information from within a particular organization to other organizations that constitute the broader learning eco-system. In defining a very clear knowledge creation research agenda, Von Krogh and Geilinger (2014: 156) argue that there is an urgent need to pay attention to the social and informal aspects of knowledge creation across organizational boundaries. As this is exactly what this research project is about, using the conceptual lens of knowledge creation theory and the notion of knowledge being created in the space between organizations, or within organizational eco-systems, is not only useful as a conceptual lens, but may help fill some of the gaps in this research field, certainly in the African context.
This point about human interaction and collective learning between organizations being overshadowed over the last decade mainly due to advancements in communications and technology, and the focus on digital learning has been identified by many other writers. Campbell (2012a: 41) is also concerned that leading academic thinkers have been swayed in part by the “all- powerful digital revolution” towards focusing only on the global connectedness of networks and interactions with digital media - at the expense of delving into a critically important understanding of what makes connectivity important. In particular, Campbell (2012a) stresses the point that human interaction and human relationships and how these play a role in connectedness, have not been given theoretical prominence.
It is this aspect of the importance of actors in open systems participating in a process of collective learning, despite there being no overt, explicit formal arrangements to govern the system (Campbell, 2012a) that is a particularly interesting notion to take note of. In an attempt to unpack this phenomenon, Campbell (2012a) introduces two centrally important and related concepts that are critical for understanding successful knowledge transfer between cities. The first is that of an innovative milieu identified by Aydalot (1986) and understood as the creation of an atmosphere of complete trust that is helpful for both “collaboration and creativity in a particular locality”
(Campbell, 2012a: 43). The second idea, developed by knowledge management thought leader Nonaka, is referred to as a “ba” (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 2000). In an industrial management setting, this ba refers to the creation of a particular atmosphere, or openness, where managers and workers are without the “negative constraints of possible embarrassment, retribution or even fear”
31
(Campbell, 2012a: 44). The central argument in Campbell’s (2012a) work is that the creation of these safe spaces, and the personal trust and sharing of values that is a key ingredient in determining whether those involved in city learning will reach out to others in learning networks in any meaningful or significant way. It is precisely these assertions that will be tested as the boundaries of the geography of institutional learning are pushed further.