Advertisement

Keynote Address: Organizational Learning in Dynamic Domains

  • Scott Henninger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2176)

Abstract

Enabling organizational learning involves more than repositories and search engines. At its core, it involves the design of work practices that balance the desire for innovation with knowledge of past experiences and best practices. This tension is particularly acute in the software industry, which involves the development of a highly variable product that dictates the need for continuous process adjustments.

This paper explores the issues of managing knowledge in dynamic domains requiring significant levels of improvisation within each repetition of the process. The challenge is not one of capturing and finding complete solutions to problems, but the more difficult task of finding and integrating partial solutions that can serve as the baseline for continuous improvement, and hence, organizational learning. Techniques will be explored that couple process and workflow management with knowledge management to capture and build an experiential body of knowledge for software development activities.

Keywords

Knowledge Management Knowledge Creation Collaborative Filter Organizational Memory Keynote Address 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. 1.
    M. S. Ackerman, “Answer Garden: A tool for growing organizational memory,” in MIT Sloan School of Management. Boston, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. S. Ackerman and C. A. Halverson, “Reexamining Organizational Memory,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 43, pp. 59–64, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. W. Aha and R. Weber (Eds.), Intelligent Lessons Learned Systems: Papers from the 2000 Workshop. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/AAAI00-ILLS-Workshop/, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K.-D. Altoff, M. Nick, and C. Tautz, “Improving Organizational Memories through User Feedback,” 2nd International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (LSO 2000), Oulu, Finland, pp. 27–44, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Arango, “Domain Analysis: From Art Form to Engineering Discipline, ”Fifth International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 152–159, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Arent, J. Nørbjerg, and M. H. Pederson, “Creating Organizational Knowledge in Software Process Improvement,” 2nd International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (LSO 2000), Oulu, Finland, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Argyris, “Double Loop Learning in Organizations,” Harvard Business Review, vol. Sept-Oct, pp. 115–125, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Argyris and D. A. Schön, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Balabanovic and Y. Shoham, wReferral Web: Combining Social Networks and Collaborative Filtering,“ Comm. of the ACM, vol. 40, pp. 66–72, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. E. Bardram, “Plans and Situated Action: An Activity Theory Approach to Workflow Systems,” Proc. European Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW 97), Lancaster, UK, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Basili, G. Caldiera, and D. Rombach, “Experience Factory,“ in Encyclopedia of Software Engineering: Wiley & Sons, 1994, pp. 469–476.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Basili, M. Lindvall, and P. Costa, “Implementing the Experience Factory Soncepts as a Set of Experience Bases,” International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’ 01), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. R. Basili and H. D. Rombach, “Support for Comprehensive Reuse,” Software Engineering Journal, pp. 303–316, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Birk and F. Kröschel, “A Knowledge Management Lifecycle for Experience Packages on Software Engineering Technologies,” 1st International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (LSO 1999), Kaiserlautern, FRG, pp. 115–126, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Broome and P. Runeson, “Technical Requirements for the Implementation of an Experience Base,” 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’ 99), pp. 87–102, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. S. Brown and P. Duguid, “Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation,”Organization Science, vol. 2, pp. 40–57, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. S. Brown and P. Duguid, The Social Life of Information: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Cugola, “Tolerating Deviations in Process Support Systems via Flexible Enactment of Process Models,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 982–1000, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. H. Davenport and L. Prusak, “Working Knowledge — How Organizations Manage What They Know,” Harvard Business School Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Dieberger, P. Dourish, K. HöÖk, P. Resnick, and A. Wexelbat, “Social Navigation: Techniques for Building More Usable Systems,” interactions, vol. 7, pp. 36–45, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Dybå, “Improvisation in Small Software Organizations,” IEEE Software, vol. 17, pp. 82–87, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. L. Feldmann, “Developing a Tailored Reuse Repository Structure-Experience and First Results,” 1st International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (LSO 1999), Kaiserlautern, FRG, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. L. Feldmann, M. Nick, and M. Frey, “Towards Industrial-Strength Measurement Programs for Reuse and Experience Repository Systems,” 2nd International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (LSO 2000), Oulu, Finland, pp. 7–18, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. T. Fiorini, J. C. S. do Prado Leite, and C. J. de Lucenda, “Reusing Process Patterns,” 2nd International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (LSO 2000), Oulu, Finland, pp. 19–37, 2000.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Fischer, A. Lemke, and T. Schwab, “Knowledge-Based Help Systems,” Proc. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’ 85), pp. 161–167, 1985.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Fischer and J. Ostwald, “Knowledge Management: Problems, Promises, Realities, and Challenges,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 16, pp. 60–72, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Henninger, “Accelerating the Successful Reuse of Problem Solving Knowledge Through the Domain Lifecycle,” Fourth International Conference on Software Reuse, Orlando, FL, pp. 124–133, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Henninger, “An Environment for Reusing Software Processes,” Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse, Victoria, British Columbia, pp. 103–112, 1998.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Henninger, “An Evolutionary Approach to Constructing Effective Software Reuse Repositories,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 1997.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. Henninger, “Using Software Process to Support Learning Software Organizations,” 1st International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (LSO 1999), Kaiserlautern, FRG, 1999.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Henninger and K. Baumgarten, “A Case-Based Approach to Tailoring Software Processes,” International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning (ICCBR 01), Vancouver, B.C., 2001.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    S. Henninger, K. Lappala, and A. Raghavendran, “An Organizational Learning Approach to Domain Analysis,” 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, Seattle, WA, pp. 95–104, 1995.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    G. P. Huber, “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures,” Organization Science, vol. 2, pp. 88–115, 1991.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    C. Johannson, P. Hall, and M. Coquard, “Talk to Paula and Peter — They are Experienced,” 1st International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (LSO 1999), Kaiserlautern, FRG, pp. 69–76, 1999.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    H. Kautz, B. Selman, and M. Shah, “Referral Web: Combining Social Networks and Collaborative Filtering,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 40, pp. 63–65, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    D. H. Kim, “The Link Between Individual and Organizational Learning,” Sloan Management Review, vol. Fall, pp. 37–50, 1993.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. Konstan, B. Miller, D. Maltz, J. L. Herlocker, L. R. Gordon, and J. Riedl, “GroupLens: Applying Collaborative Filtering to Usenet News,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 40, pp. 77–87, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    B. Levitt and J. G. March, “Organizational Learning,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 14, pp. 319–340, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    J. G. March, “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,” Organizational Science, vol. 2, pp. 71–87, 1991.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    F. Maurer and B. Dellen, “Process Support for Virtual Software Organizations,” 1st International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (LSO 1999), Kaiserlautern, FRG, 1999.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    E. C. Nevis, A. J. DiBella, and J. M. Gould, “Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems,” Sloan Management Review, vol. 36, pp. 75–85, 1995.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    I. Nonaka and H. Takeychi, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    D. O’Leary, “Enterprise Knowledge Management,” IEEE Computer, vol. 31, pp. 54–61, 1998.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    J. S. Poulin and J. M. Caruso, “A Reuse Metrics and Return on Investment Model,” in Advances in Software Reuse. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993, pp. 152–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    D. A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    P. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1990.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    U. Shardanand and P. Maes, “Social Information Filtering: Algorithms for Automating “Word of Mouth”,” Proc. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’ 95), Denver, CO, pp. 210–217, 1995.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    E. W. Stein and V. Zwass, “Actualizing Organizational Memory with Information Systems,” Information Systems Research, vol. 6, pp. 85–117, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    L. Suchman, Plans and Situated Action: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    L. Terveen, W. Hill, B. Amento, D. W. McDonald, and J. Creter, “PHOAKS: A System for Sharing Recommendations,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 40, pp. 59–62, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    L. G. Terveen, P. G. Selfridge, and M. D. Long, “From’ Folklore’ To’ Living Design Memory’,” Proceedings InterCHI’ 93, Amsterdam, pp. 15–22, 1993.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    J. P. Walsh and G. R. Ungson, “Organizational Memory,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, pp. 57–91, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Henninger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science & EngineeringUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln LincolnNE

Personalised recommendations