Abstract
Recently, an increasing amount of research and literature has focused on knowledge management, organizational learning and virtual teams. Building on Parsons 1950s and 1960s work around general Theory of Actions, this paper uses Schwandt’s (1994; 1995; 1999) dynamic organizational learning model that considers both cognition and action, as a framework, to explore the factors that a virtual project team (the British Petroleum Knowledge Management Team) used to contribute to a multi-national’s learning, along two-dimensions: structural and sense-making dimensions.Despite a growing body of literature in both organizational learning and groupware research, there are few studies on the relationship between the two areas. Exceptions are the empirical study of a groupware implementation by Riggs, Bellinger and Krieger (1996) and Neilson’s (1997) case study exploring the influence of a collaborative technology – this three year case study on BP’s virtual team provides new, qualitative insights into previously unexplored areas of research in the knowledge management discipline.
Highlights
In recent years, an increasing amount of research and literature has focused on concepts such as the ‘knowledgebased economy’ (Drucker, 1993; Prusak, 1997; Botkin, 1999), ‘organizational learning’ (Senge, 1990; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998), ‘virtual teams’ (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 1998; Duarte & Snyder, 1999) and ‘computer-supported collaborative work’
Exceptions are the empirical study of a groupware implementation by Riggs, Bellinger and Krieger (1996) and Neilson’s (1997) case study exploring the influence of a collaborative technology – LotusNotes – on organizational learning
What sense-making variables were evident in the virtual knowledge management team and how did they contribute to organizational learning, both within the virtual team and at the organizational level?
Summary
An increasing amount of research and literature has focused on concepts such as the ‘knowledgebased economy’ (Drucker, 1993; Prusak, 1997; Botkin, 1999), ‘organizational learning’ (Senge, 1990; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998), ‘virtual teams’ (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 1998; Duarte & Snyder, 1999) and ‘computer-supported collaborative work’ (groupware or collaborative technology; Orlikowski, 1992; Orlikowski & Yates, 1994; Schrage, 1995; Lloyd & Boyle, 1998). Much of our understanding of organizational learning is not based on empirical field research. Project teams have varied communication, coordination, and information needs. These teams are often virtual, working from physically dispersed offices, working from home, or traveling, creating new logistical problems. To ensure that knowledge, created by teams, is transferred to the organization for use in future projects, organizations are establishing large-scale knowledge management functions and initiatives. Extending knowledge of how teams contribute to organizational learning, and the role of collaborative technology, have potential to both improve knowledge management initiatives and increase the return on investments in collaborative technology. Collaborative technologies: A subset of groupware, collaborative technologies provide sets of tools that support two or more people engaged in achieving common objectives [using communication and information sharing technology] (Martin, 1994) To provide context for this research study, the following definitions were used: 1. Collaborative technologies: A subset of groupware, collaborative technologies provide sets of tools that support two or more people engaged in achieving common objectives [using communication and information sharing technology] (Martin, 1994)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
