Modeling the Creation of a Learning Organization by using the
Learning Organization Atlas Framework
Mijalce Santa
1,2
and Selmin Nurcan
2
1
Faculty of Economics – Skopje, Ss Cyril and Methodius University, Blvd Goce Delcev 9V, Skopje, Macedonia
2
Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Université Paris I – Panthéon Sorbonne, 90 rue de Tolbiac, Paris, France
Keywords: Learning Organization Atlas Framework, Learning Organization Grid, Learning Organization Road Map,
Dynamic Model.
Abstract: In a continuously changing external environment, the learning organization can provide a competitive
advantage. However, the concept has been largely criticized for the lack of guidelines and tools on how it
could be developed. This undermines the opportunity for the development of the learning organization. This
paper aims to contribute toward the debate on its creation by proposing a Learning Organization Atlas
Framework approach. This framework comprises of the facets of the learning organization that characterize
them, a Learning Organization Grid for the analysis and benchmarking of organizations, a Learning
Organization Atlas that can be used for developing models of them, and a Learning Organization Road Map
that includes the intentions of the organization and the strategies to achieve those intentions. With the
framework and its four elements, we propose a method for modeling the learning organization and
organizational change by providing embedded flexibility. The next level for research is in identifying the
influence between different facets, strategy selection, and development of guidelines for models of learning
organizations.
1 INTRODUCTION
A learning organization is an organization that
facilitates the learning of all its members and
consciously transforms itself and its context (Pedler
et al., 1991). It is an organization skilled at creating,
acquiring, interpreting, transferring, and retaining
knowledge, and at purposefully modifying its
behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights
(Garvin, 2000). In today’s complex external and
internal environments, where vital planning
assumptions continuously change, the learning
organization is seen as a way in which the
organizations sustain their competitiveness
(Jashapara, 2004).
According to The Boston Consulting Group, in a
world driven by innovation and rapid change,
becoming a learning organization from top to bottom
provides a clear competitive advantage and this will
become more important in the future (2008; 2010).
A survey by the business magazine
“Strategy+business” (Kleiner, 2005) ranked the idea
of "the Learning Organization" as the second most
enduring idea about strategy and business, among
the 10 ideas that are most likely to last at least
another 10 years.
Though the positive values of learning
organizations, such as increased competitiveness
have been widely discussed, critical aspects have
also been raised, particularly the dilemmas related to
its creation.
These criticisms are justified as until now only a
limited understanding of how organizations can
accomplish this exists and even less is available in
terms of ideas supported by empirical research
(Davis and Daley, 2008; Easterby-Smith et al., 1999;
Tsang, 1997), and further, no practical operational
advice (Garvin, 2000) or a template (Cavaleri, 2008)
that managers can use is available.
Therefore, the mismatch between the strong
expression of importance and need for learning
organizations and the lack of capabilities,
knowledge, and paths on how to create them
strongly undermines the idea and its application.
This paper aims to fill this gap. The purpose of the
paper is to a) present a multilevel and multifaceted
framework for the dynamic development of the
learning organization and b) apply this framework
278
Santa M. and Nurcan S..
Modeling the Creation of a Learning Organization by using the Learning Organization Atlas Framework.
DOI: 10.5220/0004450102780285
In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2013), pages 278-285
ISBN: 978-989-8565-60-0
Copyright
c
2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
on an example organization.
In the first part, the existing models on a learning
organization are presented and discussed. Then, we
present the Learning Organization Atlas Framework
and show how the learning organization models can
be developed and applied. We apply the framework
and the modelling approach on an example
organization. Finally, a conclusion and some
perspectives on this work are presented.
2 RELATED WORK
The most known models in the learning organization
literature are the energy flow model (Pedler et al.,
1991), Senge's model (Senge, 1990), seven
dimensions of the learning organization (Watkins
and Marsick, 1993), and learning organization
building blocks (Garvin et al., 2008). All these
models are normative and suggest that learning can
occur only under certain conditions. The leaders and
the organization need to create those conditions
through disciplined action or intervention. If the
organization does not meet these conditions, it
cannot learn.
Pedler et al. (1991) focus their model on
movement and identify flows that can move: a)
vertically from an individual to the collective and
vice versa linking ideas and policy and b)
horizontally from vision to action and vice versa
linking actions and operations. These flows are
supported by eleven characteristics that create the
learning organization:
The learning approach to strategy
Participative policy making
Informating
Formative accounting and control
Internal exchange
Reward flexibility
Enabling structures
Boundary workers as environment scanners
Inter-company learning
Learning climate
Self-development opportunities for all
Although this model tries to have an integrated
approach toward the learning organization, it cannot
be used for its development. The main shortcoming
of this model is that it neither defines the relations
between the elements nor on how the interactions
between the flows should be done.
Senge (1990) identified five elements that are
important for the learning organization: building a
shared vision, personal mastery, working with
mental models, team learning, and systems thinking.
He does not structure the elements in a model and
does not provide a clear picture on the relations
between these elements. A characteristic of this
model is that it introduces systemic thinking to the
learning organization and identifies it as an element
that underlies all the other elements.
Through the seven dimensions of the learning
organization model, Watkins and Marsick (1993)
view it as one that has the capacity to integrate
people and structures in order to move toward
continuous learning and change (Yang et al., 2004).
The model is structured around four levels:
individual, teams, organization, and society. For
each level, they identified seven distinct but
interrelated dimensions of a learning organization:
Continuous learning
Inquiry and dialogue
Team learning
Empowerment
Embedded systems
Systems connection and
Strategic leadership
This model is clearly organized and structured.
However, two shortcomings are identified. First, a
lack of the developmental aspect that presents the
levels that these dimensions can have, and second, a
lack of clear identification of the organizational and
team dimensions on the individual dimensions.
The learning organization building blocks model
has identified three blocks that support the
development of the learning organization:
a supportive learning environment that
consists of psychological safety, appreciation
of differences and openness to new ideas, and
time for reflection,
concrete learning processes and practices
consisting of experimentation, information
collection, analysis, education and training,
and information transfer, and
leadership that reinforces learning.
This model does not identify the levels in the
learning organization and lacks identification of the
influence of all the blocks on the individual who is
learning in the organization.
In Table 1, a comparative overview of the
models is presented (1 is low, 5 is high). The
comparison is based on the number of facets that are
included in the models, levels of development of the
facets, identification of the relations between the
facets and the possibility to use the model for LO
development. Overall the table presents that the
ModelingtheCreationofaLearningOrganizationbyusingtheLearningOrganizationAtlasFramework
279
existing models provide rather poor base for
mapping and developing the learning organization.
Table 1: Evaluation of the models.
Authors Domains Levels Relations Develop
Pedler et al., (1991) 4 1 1 1
Senge, (1990) 3 2 3 2
Watkins and
Marsick, (1993)
3 4 3 2
Garvin et al., (2008) 3 2 3 2
According to (DiBella, 1995), there are two
other perspectives to the learning organization:
developmental and capability. The developmental
perspective sees a learning organization as a stage in
the organization's development. There are different
styles and processes for different stage. Although
this perspective provides more flexibility in
becoming a learning organization, it does not
identify that the learning is indigenous to
organizational life. The capability perspective
proposes that each organization learns through its
own learning processes embedded in the
organization's culture and structure.
The capabilities perspective legitimates a
pluralistic view toward learning and learning style
(DiBella, 1995) and provides the flexibility in the
organization to create its own path toward becoming
a learning organization.
The three perspectives, although conflicting in
some aspects, when combined with each contribute
to the understanding of the learning organization
(DiBella, 1995). The normative perspective provides
the vision that serves as focal point or target for
change. The developmental perspective considers
the history and shows how learning is contingent on
the organization's stage of development. The
capability perspective uncovers the transparency of
the present.
Although it can be expected that there are clear
guidelines on how to organize the process of
creating the learning organization, it is not the case.
Only some books provide a step-by-step guideline
(Kline and Saunders, 2010; Marquardt, 1996; Pearn
et al., 1994) but that is more related to change
management than to a learning organization. A
different approach is used by King (2001) who
proposes six distinctly different strategies through
which the learning organization can be achieved:
Information systems infrastructure
Intellectual property
Individual learning
Organizational learning
Knowledge management
Innovation
As King notes none of these strategies, if applied
alone, is sufficient. There is a need for their
combination.
3 LEARNING ORGANIZATION
ATLAS FRAMEWORK
In order to develop a dynamic model that will enable
the creation of the learning organization the
following aspects should be taken into account.
First, the learning organization is a multi-faceted
construct (Yang et al., 2004). It has too many facets,
attributes, and variables that need to be taken into
account. Second, the relationships within the facet
and between the facets are complex and determine
how the learning organization will be developed
(Grieves, 2008). Third, the learning organization is a
chameleon-like target (DiBella, 1995), it is not a
state that can be achieved, but a continuous journey,
a journey on which the organization will
continuously learn and change to stay on the edge of
chaos (Waldrop, 1992). Fourth, there is no single
approach to build a learning organization because
each approach should be customized by taking into
account the characteristics of the individual
organization (Redding, 1997). Taking in account
these aspects, we propose the Learning Organization
Atlas Framework that consists of four elements:
Learning Organization Facets, Learning
Organization Grid, Learning Organization Atlas, and
Learning Organization Road Map. This framework
with its elements provides a systematic way of
dealing with learning organization modeling and
organizational change by providing embedded
flexibility.
3.1 Learning Organization Facets
Through an extensive literature review, eleven facets
of the learning organization were identified. The
learning facet is identified as a core facet, while the
others are distributed to four pillars that support the
learning in the organizations.
Direction pillar – vision and strategy
Infrastructure pillar – structure, technology,
and processes
Informal pillar – culture, power, and politics
Change pillar – change and leadership
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
280
3.2 Learning Organization Grid
Each facet is looked through a Learning
Organization Grid (LOG) that is a result of the
combination of the learning entities in the
organization and the levels of learning. We have
identified three entities (individual, team, and
organization) and four levels of learning (zero, one,
two, and three). The entities and the levels of
learning are identified through an extensive
literature review and are a summary of the work of
different authors (Senge, 1990; Marsick and
Watkins, 1993, Pedler et al., 1991; Argyris, 1999).
On an individual level
Zero learning – receipt of information which
may lead to learning, but are not learning
events
Learning level 1 – skill learning, that is,
making choices within a simple set of
alternatives. Also known as single-loop
learning (Argyris, 1999), or adaptive learning
(Senge, 1990).
Learning level 2 – choosing between sets
within which level 1 learning takes place.
Also known as double-loop learning (Argyris,
1999), or generative learning (Senge, 1990).
Learning level 3 – learning to learn, also
known as deutero-learning (Argyris, 1999).
For each individual level of learning, an
appropriate team and organization level should be
identified. On a team level the following type of
teams are identified:
Meet – the teams only meet and exchange
information for mere reporting purpose with
no goal to support learning
Discuss – the team members try to tell and sell
their opinion and to gain opinion on one
meaning.
Dialogue – to inquire, learn, unfold shared
meaning, and uncover and examine
assumptions.
Integrate – to integrate multiple perspectives
and to jointly create new perspectives.
On an organizational level, we have the
following levels:
Waste – the organization is not recognizing
the knowledge it has or the need to manage
that knowledge.
Store – the organization is collecting the
information and knowledge that is circulating
in the organization and stores it in various
ways. Limited distribution of this knowledge
is available to the teams and individuals.
Disseminate – the collected knowledge is
made available to teams and individuals in
various ways and it can be easily used in their
learning.
Create – the organization is creating new
knowledge that it provides to the individuals
and teams in the organization.
Figure 1: Learning organization grid applied on the
learning facet.
Figure 1 presents the result we get when we look on
the learning facet through the LOG and Figure 2 for
the technology facet.
Figure 2: Learning organization grid applied on the
technology facet.
Each grid results in nine cells per facet. We have
identified four types of relations between the cells
(Figure 3):
intra-cell (A) that could initiate translational
change,
intra-level (B1 and B2) where B1 initiates
translational, while B2 transformational
change,
inter-level (C) initiates transformational
change, and
inter-grid are the relations between the cells of
different facets. All the previous relations are
ModelingtheCreationofaLearningOrganizationbyusingtheLearningOrganizationAtlasFramework
281
a part of this type of relation and can result in
translational and transformational changes.
Figure 3: Relations within the Learning Grid.
3.3 Learning Organization Atlas
The LOG enables us to create a map of each
Learning Organization Facet that it is identified.
However, the facets are interrelated and influence
each other so that the real value is achieved when
the maps are layered on each other and the relations
are identified. Depending on the purpose of the
research, all or some of the maps can be layered. To
achieve this, we will use the Learning Organization
Atlas (LOA) (Figure 4).
Figure 4: The Learning Organization Atlas.
By layering facet maps created with the same grid
through the LOA, the following can be achieved:
identify how the cells within an individual
facet are aligned and what needs to be
changed,
identify how different facets are aligned and
based on that, make decisions on what needs
to be changed in order to become a learning
organization, and
the organizations can create a customized
learning-organization atlas model that will fit
their characteristics and needs.
To facilitate the process of making decisions and
taking steps for changing the organization and
making a customized learning organization model
the organization can use the Learning Organization
Road Map.
3.4 Learning Organization Road Map
In reality, an organization is a dynamic entity that is
changing continuously. Organizations need to have
tools that will help them to change and sustain this
competitiveness. The Learning Organization Road
Map (LORM) based on results of the LOA provides
guidelines to the organizations, their learning needs,
and the required changes to be made. LORM is built
on the propositions made by the map model of
Rolland et al. (1999). According to them, a map is a
process model in which a non-deterministic ordering
of intentions and strategies has been included. The
map is composed of one or more sections (Rolland
and Prakash, 2001). A section is an aggregation of
two kinds of intentions, the source and target
intentions together with a strategy represented as <
source intention Ii, target intention Ij, strategy Sij>.
An intention is a goal that can be achieved by the
performance of a process. There are two special
intentions, Start and Stop, to begin and end the map
respectively. A strategy is an approach, a manner to
achieve an intention. It characterizes the flow from Ii
to Ij and the way Ij can be achieved. Because the
next intention and strategy to achieve it are selected
dynamically, guidelines that make available all
choices open to handle a given situation are of great
importance. The map has three guidelines,
‘Intention Selection Guideline’ per node Ii,
except for Stop. Given an intention Ii, an
Intention Selection Guideline (ISG), identifies
the set of intentions {Ij} that can be achieved
in the next step
‘Strategy Selection Guideline’ per node pair
<Ii,Ij>. Given two Intentions Ii, Ij, and a set of
possible strategies Sij1, Sij2, ..Sijn applicable
to Ij, the role of the Strategy Selection
Guideline (SSG) is to guide the selection of a
Sijk.
‘Intention Achievement Guideline’ per section
<Ii,Ij, Sij>. Intention Achievement Guideline
(IAG) that provides an operational or an
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
282
intentional means to fulfill a business
intention.
Each map is represented as a directed graph from
Start to Stop. In the graph, the intentions are
represented as nodes and strategies as edges between
these. The graph is directed because the strategy
shows the flow from the source to the target
intention.
4 APPLICATION
In this section, we illustrate the process of
development of a dynamic model of the learning
organization. Organization X pressed by competition
and a changing environment decides to fulfill the
learning organization requirements and to be on
level 3 cells for each entity on each facet. To achieve
this it first needs to analyze the existing situation in
the organization, benchmark the results to the
learning organization characteristics, and then to
align the cells in the facets and between the facets to
fulfill the learning organization (LO) requirements.
Based on the above, the intentions are:
Intention 1 – analyze the facets
Intention 2 – align the facets
Intention 3 – fulfill LO requirements
To achieve intention 1 the organization can use
formal (S1) or informal strategy (S2). By formally
applying the LOG and defining the processes
through which the information will be collected, it
can be expected that Intention 2 will be achieved.
However, a strategy that is more informal can be
used to get an introductory view of the position of
the organization X.
To move from intention 1 to intention 2, the
organization can apply two strategies: align
cells within a facet (S3) or/and align cells
between the different facets (S4). These
strategies are based on the identified
relationships within the LOG and LOGs of
different facets.
To move from intention 2 to intention 3, the
organization can apply four strategies:
transformational (S5), incremental (S6),
supported from outside (S7), and internally
managed (S8). Strategies S5 and S6 are based
on the type of changes that are required to
move the organization from one cell to the
next level of cell. Strategy S8 is based on
literature review, where it is suggested that in
the process of becoming a learning
organization an external expert with
knowledge and practical experience of a
learning organization should be involved. S8
is proposed in order to give flexibility to the
organization to develop into a learning
organization with its own resources.
After the realization of intention 3, the
company can apply a strategy of keeping the
new status (S9) or keeping the company open
for change (S10). The learning organization is
a continuous journey, so S10 should provide a
way for this to be achieved. On the other hand,
S9 can be used when there are no new internal
or external pressures to make new changes in
order to stay as a learning organization.
All these relations are presented in the global
map (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Learning organization <source intention Ii, target
intention Ij, strategy Sij>.
To achieve intention 1, we opt for strategy 2 and
use the LOG on the learning and technology facet
presented in Figures 1 and 2. The following have
been identified for the learning facet: The
individuals are practicing adaptive learning and as a
result, they make choices within a simple set of
alternatives (cell I1). The teams exist but they only
meet and exchange information for a mere reporting
purpose with no goal to support learning (cell T0).
The organization is collecting the information and
knowledge that is circulating in the organization and
stores it in various ways. However, limited
distribution of this knowledge is available to the
teams and individuals (O1).
Regarding the technology facet, the analysis
reveals that the majority of the individuals in the
organization have computers on which they mainly
use the internet browser, email application, and
office package (I0). The teams have bulletin boards,
forums, and some team tools (T1); however, the
majority of team members only read the
information, while only a small number of persons
ModelingtheCreationofaLearningOrganizationbyusingtheLearningOrganizationAtlasFramework
283
publish on it. On the organizational level, the
organization uses the email system for
communication within the company (O0).
By using the LOA, we can identify that
Organization X is not fulfilling the principles of the
LO (at level 3). Furthermore, there is misalignment
between the cells within both facets.
One important aspect of using the LORM is that
the global map can be decomposed in refined maps
that will show the intentions and strategies at a more
detailed level, for example, for the section <Analyze
the facets, Align Facets, Align cells within a facet
strategy>. The refined map for the learning facet is
presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Refined map.
The following intentions were identified:
Intention 1 - vertical alignment of each entity
to be on level 3; and
Intention 2 - horizontal alignment of each
entity to be on the same level.
Strategies for vertical alignment are divided as per
the entity:
Strategies for individuals:
Informal learning (S1.1) that includes learning
at work and action learning; and
Formal learning (S1.2) that is based on
trainings and formal courses.
Strategies for teams:
Formal training for work in teams (S1.3); and
Team competition (S1.4) that is based on
same teams working on same issues and
creating redundancy (Nonaka, 1994).
Strategies for the organization:
Developing formal systems (S1.5) for
collecting, storing, and distributing
information and knowledge; and
Developing informal systems (S1.6) for
collecting, storing, and distributing
information and knowledge (Pedler et al.,
1991; Watkins and Marsick, 1993).
The strategies for horizontal alignment are:
Anticipation strategy (S1.7) based on the
perception of the organization that a certain
entity is underperforming in certain facets and
self-initiating the changes in that facet; and
Push strategy (S1.8) were the organization has
not self-initiated the changes, but now, owing
to incompatibility with other facets the
organization cannot function properly and it is
pushed to change.
Based on the selection of the strategies the
process will be ended with:
Formal proposal for action (S1.9).
By developing a refined map for each section,
we create a detailed road map that the organization
can use to develop a customized and own approach
in becoming a learning organization. The map can
be refined up to a level of business processes,
wherein a business process chunk is developed. The
business process chunk will specify the roles, actors,
and their activities through which the strategies can
be realized and intentions achieved.
By using an intention-driven model, it is easier
to highlight the business intentions and strategies.
Furthermore, the road map model provides a priori
flexibility since the navigation will be dynamically
performed during the execution.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have proposed the Learning
Organization Atlas Framework as a modelling
approach for the LO. We have proposed a Learning
Organization Grid that can be used for analyzing and
benchmarking organizations toward the Learning
Organization Facets. Then, we presented the
Learning Organization Atlas, which can be used to
develop learning organization models. In the next
section, we introduced the Learning Organization
Road Map as an intentional model of the learning
organization. Through it, we demonstrated the
flexibility with which the learning organization can
be developed based on the business intentions and
the strategies that the organizations can use. At the
end, we presented an example of how all the three
elements can be used to develop a LO.
A major advantage of our proposed approach is
the systematic way of dealing with learning
organization modelling and organizational change.
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
284
Furthermore, it has an embedded flexibility that
enables it to be used for development of tools and
information systems for different organizations by
type and size. When compared with the other models
(Table 1) LOAF provides better ground for
developing the Learning organization because it:
Enables the organizations to include more
facets in their analysis (11 in total) or add
other facets not identified here.
Clearly identify the levels that are important
for analysis of the facets.
Creates a structure through which in a more
clear way the facets relations and development
paths can be identified and justified.
For the future, we have identified three avenues
for research. First, the identification of the influence
between cells in the same facet and the influence of
one facet on the other facets. Second, adding
identification of which strategies can be best utilized
to achieve the goal of becoming a LO. Third, the
development of clear guidelines, that support the
selection of intentions and strategies, and the
achievement of those strategies. By researching in
these three areas, our proposed approach can be
strengthened and applied to more organizations
REFERENCES
Argyris, C., 1999. On Organizational Learning, Wiley-
Blackwell., 2nd ed.
Cavaleri, S. A., 2008. Are learning organizations
pragmatic? The Learning Organization 15, 474–485.
Davis, D., Daley, B. J., 2008. The learning organization
and its dimensions as key factors in firms’
performance. Human Resource Development
International 11, 51–66.
DiBella, A. J., 1995. Developing learning organizations: A
matter of perspective. Academy of Management
Journal 38, 287–290.
Easterby-Smith, M., Araujo, L., Burgoyne, J., 1999.
Organizational Learning and the Learning
Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice,
Sage Publications Ltd., 1st ed.
Garvin, D. A., 2000. Learning in Action: A Guide to
Putting the Learning Organization to Work. Harvard
Business Press.
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., Gino, F., 2008. Is yours
a learning organization? Harvard Business Review 86,
109.
Grieves, J., 2008. Why we should abandon the idea of the
learning organization. The Learning Organization 15,
463 – 473.
Jashapara, A., 1993. The competitive learning
organization: A quest for the Holy. Management
Decision 31, 52.
Jashapara, A., 2004. Knowledge Management: An
Integrated Approach. Pearson Education Limited,
Essex.
King, W. R., 2001. Strategies for creating a learning
organization. Information Systems Management 18, 12.
Kleiner, A., 2005. Our 10 Most Enduring Ideas.
strategy+business Winter 2005.
Kline, P., Saunders, B., 2010. Ten Steps to a Learning
Organization, Great River Books., 2nd ed.
Marquardt, M. J., 1996. Building the Learning
Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum
Improvement and Global Success. Mcgraw-Hill.
Marsick, V. J., Watkins, K. E., 2003. Demonstrating the
Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The
Dimensions of the Learning Organization
Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human
Resources 5, 132–151.
Nonaka, I., 1994. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1),
pp.14–37.
Örtenblad, A., 2007. Senge’s many faces: problem or
opportunity? Learning Organization, The 14, 108–122.
Pearn, M., Wood, R., Fullerton, J., Roderick, C., 1994.
Becoming a learning organization: how to as well as
why, in: Towards the Learning Company: Concepts
and Practices. McGraw-Hill, pp. 186–199.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T., 1991. The Learning
Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development,
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., 1st ed.
Redding, J. C., 1997. Hardwiring the Learning
Organization. Training and Development 51, 61–67.
Rolland, C., Prakash, N., 2001. Matching ERP system
functionality to customer requirements, in: Fifth IEEE
International Symposium on Requirements
Engineering, 2001. Proceedings. pp. 66 –75.
Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A., 1999. A Multi-
Model View of Process Modelling. Requirements Eng
4, 169–187.
Senge, P. M., 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and
Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday
Business., 1st ed.
Tosey, P., 2005. The hunting of the learning organization:
A paradoxical journey. Management learning 36, 335.
Tsang, E. W. K., 1997. Organizational learning and the
learning organization: a dichotomy between
descriptive and prescriptive research. Human relations
50, 73–89.
Waldrop, M. M., 1992. Complexity: The Emerging
Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, Simon &
Schuster., 1st ed.
Watkins, K. E., Marsick, V. J., 1993. Sculpting the
Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and
Science of Systemic Change, Jossey-Bass., 1st ed.
Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., Marsick, V. J., 2004. The
construct of the learning organization: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Human Resource
Development Quarterly 15, 31–55.
ModelingtheCreationofaLearningOrganizationbyusingtheLearningOrganizationAtlasFramework
285
