Expert Systems with Applications 24 (2003) 273–280

www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Computer systems to facilitating organizational learning:

IT and organizational context
Shih-Wei Chou*
Department of Information Management, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology,
2 Juoyue Road, Nantz District, Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan, ROC

Abstract
A comprehensive model that delineates the interrelationships among computer systems, organizational context and organizational learning
is absent. This study aims to fill this void. Unlike previous research, this study investigates the role of computer systems, i.e. organizational
learning computer systems (OLCS), in facilitating organizational learning. In our framework, we argued that contextual variables mediated
the impact of OLCS on organizational learning. In order to test the feasibility of this framework, we conducted an empirical study. This study
employed a survey instrument, which contained data collected from 500 organizations in manufacturing, service industry, and academic
institutions. A total of 165 usable responses were analyzed. The results indicate that OLCS have a positive impact on the organizational
learning processes. Both ‘problem characteristic’ and ‘organizational culture’ moderate the influence of OLCS on organizational learning.
The implications of the study are provided, and future research is suggested.
q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Organizational learning computer systems; Organizational context; Organizational learning

1. Background 1984), coordination (Rice & Shook, 1990), and colla-

A comprehensive framework concerning organiz-
ational learning has been proposed by Huber (1991).
This framework identified four constructs, which are
crucial to the effectiveness of organizational learning;
they are knowledge acquisition, information distribution,
information interpretation, and organizational memory.
Since Huber’s comprehensive view of organizational
learning theory was published, at least four researchers
have referenced this framework in conducting related
studies (Goodman & Darr, 1998; Hernes, 1999; Nonaka
& Takeuchi, 1995; Robey, Boudreau, & Rose, 2000).
However, other researchers criticized that Huber’s frame-
work did not examine the role of computer systems for
acquiring knowledge and enhancing the effect of
organizational learning. They have proved that computer
systems are changing many organizational processes
including communication (Kiesler & Sproull, 1987),
group decision making (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire,
* Tel.: þ886-7601-1000x4114; fax: 886-7601-1042.
E-mail address: swchou@ccms.nkfust.edu.tw (S.-W. Chou).
0957-4174/03/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 7 - 4 1 7 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 5 5 - 0
borative work (Kraut, Galegher, Fish, & Chalfonte,
1992). Despite previously mentioned criticism, there are
relatively few field studies that examine the effect of
computer systems on facilitating organizational learning
(Constant, Sproull, & Kiesler, 1996; Goodman & Darr,
1998; Orlikowski, 1993a).
Orlikowski (1993b) argued that ‘organizational context’,
such as corporate strategies and structure and culture, is one
of the critical factors that influence the adoption and using
of IT. A similar concept was presented in Orlikowski
(1993a), which reveals that a number of organizational
elements, such as mental models (which affect how people
understand and appreciate IT) and structural properties
(reward systems and workplace norms), significantly
influence the implementation and usage of IT. Although
several researchers (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Henderson
& Clark, 1990; Orlikowski, 1993a,b) have investigated the
impact of organizational context on the applicability of IT in
an organization, there are relatively few empirical studies
that examine the role of organizational context, which
serves as a moderator between IT and organizational
learning. The purposes of this study are: (a) to examine
274 S.-W. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 24 (2003) 273–280
the role of computer system in facilitating organizational
learning; (b) to realize the impact of organizational context
on the effect of adopting OLCS to facilitate organizational
learning.
1.1. Conceptual framework
Many definitions of organizational learning have been
proposed. For example, Argyris (1993) emphasized that
organizational learning is a process of detecting and
correcting errors. Similarly, Fiol and Lyles (1985) claimed
that organizational learning contains the procedures to
improve actions through knowledge acquisition and cre-
ation. Huber (1991) argued that organization learns through
its process of information. He proposed an organizational
learning framework, which contained four constructs:
knowledge acquisition, information distribution, infor-
mation interpretation, and organizational memory. Good-
man and Darr (1998) employed Huber’s framework and
argued that organizational level learning occurred when the
problem-solution exchanges and consequences were com-
municated and known by other organizational members
(broadcasting ). As Brown and Duguid’s (1991) research
indicated, in order to have significant learning and
innovation in the informal communities-of-practice in
which they work, it is necessary to have a mechanism for
organizations to share their interpretation about the
problem-solving exchanges and to update the organizational
memory about their experiences (updates ). Walsh and
Ungson’s (1991) research indicated that there was some
form of organizational memory storing problem-solution
exchanges and consequences. The basic processes that
contribute to the occurrence, breadth, and depth of
organizational learning depend on organizational memory
(memory ) (Huber, 1991). Since the system with the
aforementioned functions (broadcasting, updates, and
memory) may have great impact on the organizational
learning, we call this type of system ‘organizational learning
computer system (OLCS)’.
The organizational context also plays a critical role in
affecting technology and learning processes (Goodhue &
Thompson, 1995; Tyre & Orlikowski, 1994). Contextual
variables can be viewed as increasing or decreasing the
effect of OLCS on organizational learning processes. A
wide variety of organizational variables have been pro-
posed, such as rewards systems, performance measure,
problem-solution characteristics (Goodman & Darr, 1998),
corporate strategies, structure, culture (Goodman & Darr,
1998; Orlikowski, 1993b), trust (Scott, 2000), and manage-
ment style (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). A culture of
collaboration and mutual trust should facilitate the role of
OLCS and organizational learning. However, organizations
with a conservative culture and bureaucratic structure
should substantially reduce the propensity to exchange
problems and solutions. Further, the nature and complexity
of the task structure will influence the form of problems and
solutions to be exchanged. Multiple attributes are needed to
describe a complex problem and the environmental
conditions surrounding it. Also, for complex problems,
there are many possible solutions and applicable rules to
implement those specific solutions. Therefore, it is usually
more difficult to formulate and deliver complex solutions for
those contributors. On the other hand, when the problem
statement has few attributes and there is only one solution
with few implementation rules, problem-solution exchanges
should be easy. Given the unclear functions of OLCS in
facilitating organizational learning, and the unspecified
effect of mediating organizational context on the impact of
OLCS on organizational learning, we therefore conducted
our research accordingly.
2. Research methodology
In order to explore the impact of OLCS and organiz-
ational context on organizational learning, we developed the
research framework in Fig. 1. There are two research
questions. (a) Does OLCS play a role in facilitating
organizational learning? (b) What types of organizational
context may moderate the effect of OLCS on facilitating
organizational learning?
The research design of this research contains the
following issues.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this research is ‘hypotheses
testing’. In order to do so, we conducted a study that
contained both correlational and causal study. The causal
study was conducted to verify the relationship between
OLCS and the organizational learning process. The other
question that we wanted to investigate was the effect of
organizational context. In our research, organizational
context served as a moderator. Since contextual variables
can be viewed as increasing or decreasing the costs
inherent in the decision to contribute or to adopt
knowledge, we examined the effect of the moderator
between OLCS and the organizational learning process.
Fig. 1. Research framework.
 S.-W. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 24 (2003) 273–280
2. Extent of researcher interference with the study. This
research was conducted in the natural environment of the
organization with the normal flow of work.
3. Unit of analysis. The unit of analysis in our research is an
individual.
4. Time horizon. Our research is a one-shot or cross-
sectional study. We examined the hypotheses through a
questionnaire where quantitative information was
collected.
5. Method of analysis. (a) Regression analysis: Regression
analysis is a statistical technique that can be used to
analyze the relationship between a single dependent
(criterion) variable and one or several independent
(predictor) variables. Each independent variable is
weighted by the regression analysis procedure to ensure
maximal prediction from the set of independent vari-
ables. When the problem involves a single independent
variable, the statistical technique is called simple
regression (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Grablowsky,
1979). (b) Pearson correlation analysis: In order to
improve the predictions of regression analysis, corre-
lation analysis is adopted to identify the correlations
among variables. Pearson correlation analysis is one of
the most popular statistical techniques that can select the
‘best’ independent variables based on the correlation
coefficients (Hair et al., 1979). The higher the correlation
coefficient, the stronger the relationship and hence the
greater the predictive accuracy. Therefore, in order to
assure the accuracy of regression analysis, a correlation
analysis is usually conducted first. (c) Cluster analysis:
Cluster analysis is a technique for grouping individuals,
cases, objects, or entities (firms in this study) into groups.
It differs from other techniques such as discriminant
analysis primarily because of the data inductive approach
in deriving the number and characteristics of the
groups/clusters, which are not known prior to the
analysis (Afifi & Clark, 1990). This approach seeks to
draw out groups whose internal membership is highly
coherent in terms of the various attributes/characteristics
of objects/entities that are of interest while simul-
taneously distinguishing each group from other groups.
2.1. Description of the variables
There are three types of variables in this study. The
first type of variable is OLCS, which represents the
computer systems that facilitate organizational learning.
Given that the objective of this study is to explore the
features that computer systems may have in facilitating
organizational learning, we therefore defined a term
OLCS as representing such computer systems. As the
literature indicates (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Constant
et al., 1996; Goodman & Darr, 1998; Huber, 1991;
Walsh & Ungson, 1991), the computer systems with
‘knowledge acquisition,’ ‘knowledge distribution,’
‘broadcasting,’ ‘updating,’ and ‘memory’ features can
275
be considered as OLCS. Therefore, OLCS is not a
specific IS. Instead it is simply an organization’s IT
infrastructure as an enabler for organizational learning.
Hypothesis 1 was developed to examine the possible
features of OLCS that facilitate organizational learning.
We adopted factor analysis, Pearson correlation, and
regression analysis to verify this hypothesis. The second
type of variables selected for analysis is organizational
context. Although a lot of organizational variables may
have impact on OLCS in facilitating organizational
learning, we only selected two of them, i.e. ‘problem
characteristic’ and ‘organizational culture.’ The reason
for such a selection is that the nature of the task
structure will influence the form of problems and
solutions to be exchanged. The demands on the
communication, search, acquisition, and organization for
information of OLCS may be quite different provided the
problem characteristic is different. Organizational culture
is one of the most critical factors that may either
facilitate or constrain the employment of OLCS for
organizational learning. A culture of creativity and
sharing should facilitate the role of OLCS and organiz-
ational learning. However, a lack of trust will usually
lead to reluctant to contribute knowledge to or adopt it
from the learning community. Finally, the processes of
organizational learning consist of ‘decision to contribute’
and ‘decision to adopt.’ For an individual to contribute
knowledge, one has to formulate the tacit and explicit
knowledge about what has been learned, what the
problems were, what kind of know-how I used to solve
the problems, and what the context for a solution was.
The other activity for ‘contribute’ is to delivery such
knowledge to the person who needs it. In order to do so,
knowledge has to be represented in a way that is
meaningful and easy to understand to others. In order to
adopt knowledge, an individual has to search for the
possible solutions and match the problems to the
appropriate solutions.
2.2. Data
Data were collected from firms of Taiwan through a
survey instrument. An initial version of the survey
instrument was developed based on the theory-grounded
operationalization of the various constructs. This version
was subsequently revised through pretesting with academic
and industrial experts who have knowledge concerning
‘computer-aided system that facilitates organizational
learning.’ The instrument was further pilot tested with
CIOs from different firms. The multiple phases of instru-
ment testing and development resulted in a significant
degree of refinement and restructuring of the survey
instrument as well as establishing the initial content validity
(Nunnally, 1978).
The responding firms represent a wide variety of
organizations in manufacturing and service industry, and
276 S.-W. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 24 (2003) 273–280
academic institution. There was an even distribution
among the types and sizes of these organizations. A total
of 165 usable responses were returned, providing a
response rate of 33%. Given that the survey was
unsolicited and the instrument quite complex, this response
rate can be considered satisfactory and comparable to other
studies in IS research (Raho, Belohav, & Fiedler, 1987;
Jain, 1998).
3. Results
3.1. Validity and reliability
Factor analysis using principal components factor
analysis with factor extraction and VARIMAX rotation
was conducted to examine the unidimensionality/conver-
gent and discriminant validity (Price & Mueller, 1986). The
four commonly employed decision rules were applied to
identify the factors (Hair et al., 1979): (1) minimum Eigen
value of 1; (2) minimum factor loading of 0.4 for each
indicator item; (3) simplicity of factor structure; and (4)
exclusion of single item factors. Reliability was evaluated
by assessing the internal consistency of the indicator items
of each construct by using Cronbach’s a (Cronbach, 1951).
The results of factor analysis relating to unidimensionality/
convergent validity are shown in Appendix A.
3.2. Findings
The first objective of this research is to investigate the
causal relationship between OLCS and organizational
learning process. Therefore, the first hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1. The functions of OLCS are negatively
related to the organizational learning process.
We used simple regression analysis to achieve this
objective. However, in order to assure the accuracy of
regression analysis, a correlation analysis is usually
conducted first. Therefore, we employed Pearson corre-
lation to examine the linear association between constructs.
The result of Pearson correlation analysis in Table 1
indicates that OLCS and organizational learning process are
related. Therefore, we employed simple regression analysis
to examine the causal relationship between OLCS and
organizational learning process. This result is shown in
Table 2. From this table, causal relationship between OLCS
and organizational learning processes seems to exist. In
Table 1
Result of Pearson correlation analysis
Construct Organizational
learning process
Organizational
learning process
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), N ¼ 165.
Table 2
Result of simple regression analysis
Independent variable BETA coefficient T value Significance
(Constant) 3.146 0.002***
OLCS 0.799 18.574 0.000*****
Dependent variable: organizational learning process, *****p , 0.0001;
***p , 0.01.
other words, we may claim that the functions of OLCS have
a significant impact on the organizational learning process.
The second research objective is to examine the effect of
organizational context, which serves as a moderating
variable between OLCS and organizational learning pro-
cess. Contextual variables can be viewed as increasing or
decreasing the effect of OLCS on organizational learning
process. Factor analysis of the eight organizational con-
textual items resulted in two constructs. As can be seen from
Appendix A, these two constructs represent the problem
characteristic and organizational culture. Therefore, the
original hypothesis 2 becomes hypotheses 2a and 2b. They
are:
Hypotheses 2a. The complexity of problem within an
organization is negatively related to the effect of adopting
OLCS to facilitate organizational learning.
Hypotheses 2b. The culture of encouraging creativity
within an organization is negatively related to the effect of
adopting OLCS to facilitate organizational learning.
Given the exploratory nature of the research study
concerning problem characteristic and organizational cul-
ture, we experimented with culling out a different set of
clusters consisting of two, three, four, five, and six groups,
and used different options (Euclidean and Mahalanobis
distance). To evaluate the distinctiveness of each derived
cluster, equality of variable means across the cluster was
tested, using the F-test. A two-cluster solution was chosen
based on meaningfulness of the pattern of relationships
among the variables. Table 3 shows variable means and
standard deviations related to each of the two clusters. F-
values and significance levels associated with are shown in
the last column.
As can be seen from Table 3, there are two types of
clusters for each context variable. Cluster one, relative to the
other cluster, represents a group of firms with simpler
problem characteristic and with more creative organiz-
ational culture. In order to examine hypotheses 2a and 2b,
Pearson correlation analyses was used to test for perform-
ance differences that were produced by adopting OLCS to
facilitate organizational learning between two clusters. The
results are shown in Table 4. The conclusions from Table 4
OLCS are twofold (a) while the problem characteristic becomes
more complex, the performance by adopting OLCS to
facilitate organizational learning becomes less and (b) the
0.877** effect of adopting OLCS to facilitate organizational learning
(0.000)
is higher provided that the organizational culture is more
creative. Therefore, hypothesis 2a is substantiated, however,
 S.-W. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 24 (2003) 273–280 277

Table 3
Cluster analyses of organizational context

Problem characteristic

Variable Simple (N ¼ 40), mean (SD) Complex (N ¼ 125), mean (SD) F

Most of the problems are complex 4.850 (1.040) 5.945 (0.806) 30.094*****
Employees can exchange problems and solutions 3.650 (0.745) 5.848 (0.680) 179.300*****
without difficulty
Organizational culture

Variable Creative (N ¼ 130), mean (SD) Conservative (N ¼ 35), mean (SD) F

Employees are willing to share their 5.750 (0.779) 3.880 (1.201) 101.697*****
knowledge and expertise
Employees are encouraged to share their 5.136 (1.213) 3.560 (1.121) 36.596*****
knowledge or creativity
Employees will discuss their problems and 5.693 (0.698) 3.920 (1.152) 109.073*****
difficulties with other colleagues
Employees compete with the other members 5.586 (0.857) 3.320 (1.249) 127.316*****
of the organization
Employees may exchange their working practices 5.586 (0.786) 3.000 (1.414) 172.552*****
in the current environment
Our firm is trying to transfer 5.414 (1.039) 3.440 (1.294) 70.882*****
to a learning organization

*****p , 0.0001; ****p , 0.001; ***p , 0.05; *p , 0.1.

Table 4
Pearson correlation analyses of clusters

Cluster Variables OLCS Organizational learning process

Problem characteristic
Simple (N ¼ 40) OLCS 1.000 0.785**(0.000)
Organizational learning process 1.000
Complex (N ¼ 125) OLCS 1.000 0.413**(0.000)
Organizational learning process 1.000

Organizational culture
Creative (N ¼ 130) OLCS 1.000 0.908**(0.000)
Organizational learning process 1.000
Conservative (N ¼ 35) OLCS 1.000 0.533**(0.000)
Organizational learning process 1.000

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

hypothesis 2b is rejected. We summarize the results of all Table 5

Results of hypotheses test
the hypotheses in Table 5.
Hypothesis Result Reference

4. Discussion Hypothesis 1: the functions of Rejected Tables 1 and 2

OLCS are negatively related
to the organizational learning
The purpose of this study is to contribute to a more
process
complete understanding of computer system that plays a role Hypotheses 2a: the complexity of Substantiated Tables 3 and 4
in facilitating organizational learning. While there are problem within an organization
several studies concerning organizational learning (Good- is negatively related to
man & Darr, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Hernes, the effect of adopting
OLCS to facilitate organizational
1999; Robey et al., 2000), there have been few discussions
learning
on how to facilitate organizational learning by a broader Hypotheses 2b: the culture of Rejected Tables 3 and 4
perspective, in which we may examine the combination of encouraging creativity within an
the functions supported by computer systems and their organization is negatively related
adopting contexts. The objective of this study is to address to the effect of
adopting OLCS to facilitate
the following questions: (a) Can computer system facilitate
organizational learning
organizational learning? (b) What are the possible
278 S.-W. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 24 (2003) 273–280
influences that organizational context may have on the effect
of adopting OLCS in facilitating organizational learning?
Our study indicates that organizational learning pro-
cesses relate positively with the functions of OLCS.
Moreover, we also found that the specific contextual
variables of organization have a significant impact on
organizational learning processes. The major contribution
of our study is delineating the relationship among
organizational learning processes, OLCS, and organiz-
ational context. This is actually an extension of Huber
(1991) framework of organizational learning. Also, unlike
previous researches (Goodman & Darr, 1998), we examined
the roles of OLCS, which are helpful for the processes of
organizational learning from a broader point of view.
Moreover, we specified the contextual variables that behave
as facilitators or inhibitors of organizational learning when
OLCS is employed.
The implications of this study are three-fold. First, this
research explores the IT features that may facilitate
organizational learning. Some of the features are new in
supporting organizational learning. They range from
representing information (e.g. multimedia), mechanisms to
match problems and solutions, storage and organization of
expertise for easy retrieval, to mechanisms to maintain up to
date knowledge. Understanding the features of IT that
facilitate organizational learning is very helpful for manage-
ment. Managers should emphasize the exploitation of IT
capabilities; yet realize both its short-term and long-term
limitations. Second, understanding the characteristics of the
organizational learning process in an IT-based environment
may help us to design the facilitating mechanisms accord-
ingly. The difference of the organizational learning process
between an IT-based and regular environment is therefore
worth for future research. Finally, most of the previous
researchers ignore the effect of the intervening conditions
that may influence the effect of IT adoption. Our empirical
study identified two such important intervening conditions:
problem characteristics and culture. It is therefore suggested
that in order to obtain the most effective way of
organizational learning, it is crucial for managers to develop
a strategy for incorporating OLCS, which combines
‘technology exploration’ and ‘organizational context for
adopting OLCS.’ In other words, managers may have a
checklist of ‘functions of OLCS’ as well as their company’s
specific contextual variables to achieve the most effective
organizational learning.
4.1. Limitations
There major limitation in this study is the selection of
contextual variables. As we have mentioned in Section 1, a
wide variety of organizational variables have been pro-
posed, such as rewards systems, performance measure,
problem –solution characteristics (Goodman & Darr, 1998),
corporate strategies, organizational structure, culture
(Goodman & Darr, 1998; Orlikowski, 1993b), trust (Scott,
2000), and management style (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
We only selected two of them, i.e. ‘problem characteristics’
and organizational culture. We have explained the reasons
for such choices in Section 2.1.
5. Conclusion
This study investigated the role of computer systems, i.e.
an OLCS, in facilitating organizational learning. Based on
165 respondents from organizations in manufacturing, the
service industry, and academic institutions, we found that
the functions of OLCS have a positive impact on the
organizational learning processes. We also examined the
impact of organizational context on the adopting of
computer systems to facilitate organizational learning.
Two interesting results were found. First, the complexity
of problems within an organization is negatively related to
the effect of adopting OLCS to facilitate organizational
learning. Second, the culture of encouraging creativity
within an organization is positively related to the effect of
adopting OLCS to facilitate organizational learning. Unlike
previous research, this paper examines the impact of
computer systems on organizational learning in a more
comprehensive way. First, we extended the IT features
proposed by previous researchers (Constant et al., 1996;
Goodman & Darr, 1998; Walsh & Ungson, 1991), and
proved that these functions of OLCS all have a positive
impact on organizational learning. These functions of OLCS
include multimedia style of information presentations,
synchronous and asynchronous of information transfer
(Goodman & Darr, 1998), bandwidth of information
transmission, anonymity of sender, information indexing
and sorting (Walsh & Ungson, 1991), and variety of
functions to acquire, update, and manage knowledge for
easy retrieval. Second, we conducted an empirical study to
specify the organizational context that mediates the
influences of the adoption of OLCS on facilitating
organizational learning. Some researchers (Goodman &
Darr, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Orlikowski, 1993a;
Scott, 2000) claimed the importance of such intervening
conditions, such as trust, organizational structure, but did
not specifically identify ‘problem complexity’ and ‘culture’
and proved their impact empirically as our study did.
The research results support the theoretical framework
shown in Fig. 1. By emphasizing the features of OLCS, we
may facilitate the effect of organizational learning. On the
other hand, we cannot overlook some salient organizational
contexts while adopting IT, since it may increase or decrease
the effect of organizational learning. The implications of this
study are three-fold. First, this research explores the IT
features that may facilitate organizational learning. Some of
the features are new in supporting organizational learning.
Understanding the features of IT that facilitate organizational
learning is very helpful for management. Managers should
emphasize the exploiting of IT capabilities; yet realize both
 S.-W. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 24 (2003) 273–280 279

its short-term and long-term limitations. Second, under- Table 7

standing the characteristics of the organizational learning
Factor loadings
process in an IT-based environment may help us to design the
facilitating mechanisms accordingly. The difference of the 1. Employees are wiling to contribute 0.663
organizational learning process between an IT-based and their expertise
regular environment is therefore worthy of future research. 2. I can contribute my working 0.876
Finally, most of the previous researchers ignore the effect of experience very easily
3. A computer system is necessary 0.849
the intervening conditions that may influence the effect of IT
for employees to contribute their working
adoption. Our empirical study identified two such important experience
intervening conditions: problem characteristics and culture. 4. A learning community may eliminate 0.830
In order to obtain the most effective way of organizational temporal and spatial constraints
learning, it is crucial that managers develop an OLCS 5. My problems will be solved 0.707
by adopting colleagues’ opinions
adopting strategy, which combines technology exploration
6. I can obtain the solution 0.879
and organizational context. Future studies may examine for a specific problem from a
other contextual variables, such as organizational structure, learning community
management style, rewards etc. Moreover, identifying ‘why’ 7. A computer system may facilitate 0.865
and ‘in what situations’ the organization context may the adoption of colleagues’ opinions
8. To solve the problems that 0.876
intervene the adoption of OLCS to facilitate organizational may have in work practice, I
learning will be another interesting topic. need more innovative ideas
9. Learning community will facilitate the 0.752
creation of innovative ideas
Acknowledgements
Table 8
We would like to acknowledge data collection and Factor loadings
statistical analysis in the early stage of this research from Mr
Shin-Bon Chen. This project was supported by National 1. Most of the problems are 0.829
Science Council (NSC) of Taiwan, ROC. complex
2. Employees can exchange problems and 0.839
solutions without difficulty

Appendix A
Table 9

1. OLCS (nine indicator variables; Cronbach’s Factor loadings

a ¼ 0.9499; mean (SD) ¼ 5.265 (0.992)) (Table 6)
2. Organizational learning process (nine indicator 1. Employees are willing to share 0.706
variables; Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.9359; mean (SD) ¼ 5.369 their knowledge and expertise
2. Employees are encouraged to share 0.67
(0.871)) (Table 7) their experiences, knowledge, or creativity
3. Organizational context 3. Employees will discuss their problems 0.783
A. Problem characteristic (two indicator variables; and difficulties with other colleagues
Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.6768; mean (SD) ¼ 5.697 (0.828)) 4. Employees compete with the other 0.851
(Table 8) members of the organization
5. Employees may exchange their working 0.796
practices in the current environment
6. Our firm is trying to 0.764
Table 6
transfer to a learning organization
Factor loadings

1. Communicating with different formats (text, 0.862

voice, video, image etc.)
B. Organizational Context (organizational culture) (six
2. Synchronous and asynchronous communication 0.806 indicator variables; Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.8682; mean
3. Enough bandwidth for communication 0.861 (SD) ¼ 5.344 (0.804)) (Table 9).
4. Anonymity of sender 0.742
5. Providing information indexing and sorting 0.848
6. Matching the problems with solutions 0.856
7. Providing appropriate solutions from experts 0.874
8. Providing adequate solutions by an 0.889 References
up-to-date knowledge base
9. Transferring employees’ knowledge and 0.882
Afifi, A. A., & Clark, V. (1990). Computer-aided multivariate analysis (2nd
experiences to a public mechanism
ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
280 S.-W. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 24 (2003) 273–280
Argyris, C. (1993). Education for Leading-learning. Organizational
Dynamics, 5–17.
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.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers:
on the usefulness of weak ties for technical advice. Organization
Science, 7(2), 119–135.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of
Tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297– 334.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror:
image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 34(3), 517– 554.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of
Management Review, (10), 803–813.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and
individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.
Goodman, P. S., & Darr, E. D. (1998). Computer-aided systems and
communities: mechanisms for organizational learning in distributed
environments. MIS Quarterly, 22(4), 417–440.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Grablowsky, B. J. (1979).
Multivariate data analysis. Tulsa, OK: PPC Books.
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. M. (1990). Architectural innovation: the
reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of
established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.
Hernes, T. (1999). Flexible learning systems and obsolete organization
structures: steps towards bridging the gap. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, (15), 89– 110.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing process and
the literatures. Organizational Science, 2(1), 88–115.
Jain, H., Ramamurthy, K., Ryu, H., Yasai-Acdekani, M. (1998). Success of
Data Resource Management in Distributed Environments: An Empiri-
cal Investigation. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 1 –29.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects
of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10),
1123–1134.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1987). Computing and change on campus. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Kraut, R., Galegher, J., Fish, R., & Chalfonte, B. (1992). Task requirements
and media choice in collaborative writing. Human Computer Inter-
action, (7), 375 –407.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993a). Learning from notes: organizational issues
in groupware implementation. The Information Society, (9),
237 –250.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993b). CASE tools as organizational change:
investigating incremental and radical changes in system development.
MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 309–340.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational
measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing Inc.
Raho, L. E., Belohav, J. A., & Fiedler, K. D. (1987). Assimilating new
technology into the organization: an assessment of McFarlan and
McKenney model. MIS Quarterly, 11(1), 47–57.
Rice, R. E., & Shook, D. E. (1990). Voice messaging coordination and
communication. In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.),
Intellectual teamwork (pp. 327–350). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Robey, D., Boudreau, M., & Rose, G. M. (2000). Information technology
and organizational learning: a review and assessment of research.
Accounting Management and Information Technologies, (10),
125 –155.
Scott, J. E. (2000). Facilitating interorganizational learning with infor-
mation technology. Journal of Management Information Systems,
17(2), 81 –113.
Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity: temporal
patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization
Science, 5(1), 98– 118.
Walsh, J., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of
Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.