This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 09 October 2014, At: 04:13Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The International Journal ofAviation PsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hiap20

A Framework for ImprovingOrganizational LearningThrough a User-AdaptiveIntranet Portal OrganizationalMemory Information SystemYong Gu Ji & Gavriel SalvendyPublished online: 13 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Yong Gu Ji & Gavriel Salvendy (2001) A Framework for ImprovingOrganizational Learning Through a User-Adaptive Intranet Portal OrganizationalMemory Information System, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11:2,123-148, DOI: 10.1207/S15327108IJAP1102_02

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327108IJAP1102_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

FORMAL PAPERS

A Framework for ImprovingOrganizational Learning Through a

User-Adaptive IntranetPortal Organizational Memory

Information System

Yong Gu Ji and Gavriel SalvendySchool of Industrial Engineering

Purdue University

An organizational memory information system (OMIS) is typically described in theliterature as a support for an organization’s ability to acquire and retain informationregarding its processes (Harvey, Palmer, & Speier, 1997; Huber, 1991; Lehner,Maier, & Klosa, 1998; Stein & Zwass, 1995; Wijnhoven, 1998). Many OMISs havebeen developed, but they only partially support required capability. However, emerg-ing technology, especially the Intranet portal, has the capacity to support an OMISsystematically and integrally. This article proposes an Intranet portal OMIS frame-work and several human-centered features for current Intranet portal navigation andretrieval functions. The proposed OMIS framework connects a general OMIS frame-work to characteristics of human cognition. The Intranet portal is analyzed as anOMIS identifying factor involved in information retrieval from personal memory andorganizational memory. It considers more human cognitive aspects than currentIntranet portals. Based on the background literature and technical aspects of Intranetportals, a conceptual model for navigation and retrieval functions in an Intranet portalis proposed. Three human-centered features are proposed in a conceptual model. Theproposed frameworks and conceptual model could be used to guide the developmentof an OMIS and the adaptive interface design for the Intranet portal as an OMIS.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AVIATION PSYCHOLOGY, 11(2), 123–148Copyright © 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Yong Gu Ji, School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue Univer-sity, 1287 Grissom Hall, West Lafayette, IN 47907–1287. E-mail: jiy@ecn.purdue.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Intranet is changing business environments dramatically. As an example, theuse of collaborative design distributed across the Internet is increasing within theaviation industry due to efforts such as the Virtual Factory Enterprise created forEngland’s Future Offensive Air System by Datel Defence (1999). This change hasbeen driven by the push of technology and the pull of organizational need to chal-lenge the knowledge age (Scott, 1998). In the knowledge age, the survival of an or-ganization depends on knowledge as an asset and on knowledge management. Thekey to knowledge management is organizational learning through which an organi-zation can generate, acquire, share, and apply knowledge.

To support and integrate organizational learning systematically, an informationinfrastructure—an organizational memory information system (OMIS)—shouldbe implemented (Harvey, Palmer, & Speier, 1997; Huber, 1991; Lehner, Maier, &Klosa, 1998; Stein & Zwass, 1995; Wijnhoven, 1998). Since the Intranet hasemerged, the Intranet has supported tasks and knowledge management. Beginningin 1998, Enterprise Information Portals (EIPs), or Intranet portals, have added anew capacity to the Intranet. Although Intranet portals satisfy the requirements ofan OMIS in view of function and technology, current Intranet portals have a ten-dency to neglect memory structure properties in organizational memory and hu-man cognitive aspects in interface design. As a result, Intranet portal usefulnessand usability may be unnecessarily reduced.

Unlike previous OMIS designs, when an Intranet portal is used as an OMIS, theOMIS has two memories: personal and organizational. Users interact with a widerange of heterogeneous information and knowledge, and this causes users’ mentalworkload to be elevated when using an Intranet portal. To reduce users’ mentalworkload as well as other current Intranet portal problems, two main research ob-jectives are addressed in this article: (a) finding the proper access method for per-sonal memory and organizational memory and (b) developing human-centeredfeatures (tools) for an Intranet portal to reduce human mental workload. Toachieve these two research objectives, an OMIS framework (one using an Intranetportal framework as an OMIS) is developed. This conceptual model has three hu-man-centered features (tools), a personal memory structure, and an organizationalmemory structure. Several key issues are discussed in this article related to usingan Intranet portal framework as an OMIS and associated human-centered featuresthat a framework of this type may afford.

First, within this article, the OMIS framework is discussed. By reviewing theknowledge management system, it was found that organizational learning is lo-cated at the core of knowledge management. In addition, it was found that to sup-port organizational learning efficiently and effectively, an organizational memorywith an OMIS is indispensable to the organization. This article also discusses whythe Intranet is required for an efficient and effective OMIS, and it analyzes theIntranet’s capability for organizational learning. A new technology, which is ex-tended from the Intranet, is reviewed from an OMIS perspective. To improve the

124 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

connectivity between an OMIS and its users, an OMIS framework is developedthat includes cognitive aspects of the user.

Second, within the article, an Intranet portal OMIS framework is proposed. TheIntranet portal OMIS framework is derived from the OMIS framework but in-cludes knowledge structure properties from within the Intranet portal. In thisframework, the differences between a general OMIS and an Intranet portal OMISare addressed.

The third issue addressed in this article is the navigation and retrieval functionin an Intranet portal OMIS. A conceptual model for a human-centered frameworkis suggested for improving usability and efficiency in an Intranet portal OMIS.Based on this conceptual model, several human-centered features are suggested,and their contributions in information seeking and retrieval in an Intranet portal areexplained.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There are many research areas concerning OMIS. In this section, the literature re-lated to the research problems and conceptual models is reviewed in five catego-ries: (a) knowledge management system, (b) OMIS with organizational learning,(c) Intranet, (d) information system related issues, and (e) cognitive aspects ofIntranet portals.

Knowledge Management

Data, Information, and Knowledge

Data can be defined as “the lowest form of knowledge” that is digitized and con-verted into symbolic forms, such as text, facts, interpreted images, and preprocessedcodes (Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998, p. 82). The content can be numbers and textstored in the form of computer accessible formats, such as a database or file. Data areusually highly structured (e.g., fields in a record or table in a database), and throughthat structure, relations to other data are captured (McQueen, 1998).

Information is “data imbued with context and meaning” (Liebowitz & Beckman,1998, p. 83). In other words, data in a contextual environment that shape and makesense of the raw numbers and text can be information.

Liebowitz and Beckman (1998) defined “knowledge as any text, fact, example,event, rule, hypothesis or model that increases understanding or performance in adomain or discipline” (p. 49). In an extended meaning, knowledge is described asthe capability of an individual or organization to relate complex structures of infor-mation to new contexts of action. As knowledge is a multifaceted concept withmultilayered meaning, many types of knowledge are displayed in the report by

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Nonaka (1994). The most popular distinctions in knowledge types are between ex-plicit knowledge and tacit (implicit) knowledge, formal knowledge and informalknowledge, and semantic information and episodic memory (Conklin, 1996;Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998; Nonaka, 1994).

Knowledge Management

Considering breadth, depth, meaning, conceptualization, and value in theknowledge, a knowledge hierarchy may look like this: Inputs � Data � Informa-tion � Knowledge � Expertise � Capability (Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998).Knowledge management can be defined as “the formalization of and access to ex-perience, knowledge, and expertise that create new capabilities, enable superiorperformance, encourage innovation, and enhance customer value” (Liebowitz &Beckman, 1998, p. 51).

Historically, in the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, the focus was on datamanagement and trended to information management to cope with organizationrequirements. From the late 1980s, organizations have been confronted with envi-ronmental complexity, dynamics, and high competition, which resulted in organi-zation changes. As a consequence of organization changes, during the 1990s, theknowledge age emerged to replace the information age (Maier, 1998). Much of thevalue-added work in enterprise today is primarily knowledge-based, and thereseems to be no end in sight to this trend (Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998). This situa-tion created the importance of organizational learning in knowledge organization.A critical issue to successful knowledge management is building a culture of alearning organization (Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998).

OMIS

Organizational Learning

Organizational learning can be defined in different ways. Zhang and Chen(1997) divided organizational learning into two perspectives: the action scienceperspective and the system dynamics perspective. Romme and Dillen (1997) dis-cussed four different approaches in organizational learning: contingency theory,psychology, information theory, and system dynamics. Different approaches in or-ganizational learning can complement each other. In this article, to describe howorganizational learning may occur and how organizational learning may be im-proved within an Intranet, we discuss three different approaches: action science,system dynamic, and information theory.

Action science. According to Argyris and Schön (1978, 1996), organiza-tional learning occurs when individuals within an organization experience a prob-

126 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

lematic situation and inquire into it on the organization’s behalf. Organizationallearning can be identified with two different types of learning in the detection andcorrection of error: (a) single loop learning, which is the error-detection-and-cor-rection process that depends on the current values of a theory of action, and (b) dou-ble loop learning, which is the error-detection-and-correction process results in achange in the values of theory-in-use, as well as in its strategies and assumptions(Argyris, 1994; Argyris & Schön, 1978, 1996).

System dynamics. In this perspective, “a learning organization is a placewhere people are continually discovering how they create their reality” (Senge,1990, p. 13). Learning is a system-level phenomenon because it stays within the or-ganization, even if individuals change (Nevis, Dibella, & Gould, 1995). Based onthis assumption, Senge (1990), Kim (1993), and Nevis et al. (1995) defined organi-zational learning as the capacity or processes within an organization to maintain orimprove performance based on experience. Nevis et al. (1995) identified athree-stage model: knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge uti-lization. Kim (1993) developed a model that showed how individual learning istransferred to the organization through mental models.

Information theory. Duncan and Weiss (1979) stated that formal organiza-tions can be understood to be a group of individuals who engage in activities thattransform, or support the transformation of, some set of outputs. An individual,group, organization, industry, or society learns that, through its processing of infor-mation, the range of its potential behaviors is changed (Huber, 1991). In the infor-mation theory perspective, organizations functionally resemble information-pro-cessing systems that process information from the environment (Walsh & Ungson,1991). The key to learning is in how and where organizations process and learnfrom their experiences (Domme & Dillen, 1997; Harvey et al., 1997; Huang 1998).Information processing, which can be constructed into knowledge acquisition, in-formation distribution, information interpretation, organizational memory, and de-tail constructs, is articulated in Figure 1 (Huber, 1991).

Organizations acquire information or knowledge formally or informally in alltheir activities. Acquisition can be distinguished as one of five processes, depend-ing on the source of acquisition: congenital learning, experiential learning, vicari-ous learning, grafting, and searching (see Figure 1). Information distributiondetermines both the occurrence and breadth of organizational learning (Huber,1991). Information interpretation is the process through which information ac-quires a shared meaning (Huber, 1991). To process information, organizationsneed memory in their structure. This memory is called organizational memory. Or-ganizational memory is always mentioned as the most important prerequisite for

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

organizational learning (Lehner et al., 1998). To achieve organizational learning, for-mal and informal learning systems should be institutionalized. An information infra-structure, such as a learning system, should be created to lead to effective decisionsand actions. This information infrastructure is covered in the section titled OMIS.

Organizational Memory

Organizational memory has been defined in several ways (see Table 1). Organi-zational memory can contain data, information, and knowledge. Information andknowledge have very different attributes. When implicit and explicit knowledge isstored in an information system, implicit knowledge and information should beturned into explicit form and be communicable, consensual, and integrated(Duncan & Weiss, 1979).

According to the development of organizational memory, it can be divided intofour different types: the knowledge attic, knowledge sponge, knowledge pub-lisher, and knowledge pump (Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998). Every organizationhas an organizational memory that can or cannot effectively lead organizationaldecision or action (Stein & Zwass, 1995; Wijnhoven, 1998).

To improve organizational memory, there are two major organizational mem-ory design parameters: (a) content, which influences effectiveness, and (b) means,which influence efficiency (Wijnhoven, 1998). According to Wijnhoven, the con-

128 JI AND SALVENDY

FIGURE 1 Constructs and processes associated with organizational learning. Note. From“Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literature,” by G. P. Huber,1991, Organizational Science, 70, p. 90. Copyright 1991, The Institute for the Management Sci-ences (currently INFORMS), 901 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum, MD 21090 USA. Re-printed with permission.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. does not have the electronic rights to Figure1. Please see the print version.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

tent of organizational memory is know-how, know-why, metamemory, and mem-ory information. The means of organizational memory is the organizationalmemory process (acquisition, retention, search, and maintenance) and retentionmedia. Morrison (1997) proposed a classification scheme detailing organizationalmemory information abstraction levels, types, and organizational sources. Walshand Ungson (1991) developed the structure of organizational memory—acquisi-tion, retention, and retrieval—and posited the existence of five storage bins thatcompose the structure of memory within organizations and one source outside ofthe organization (individuals, culture, transformations, structures, ecology, andexternal archives). In addition to five bins, the information system can be consid-ered as another storage bin because most organizational processing is donethrough information systems (Huber, 1991; Stein & Zwass, 1995).

To build an organizational memory is not the ultimate goal. It is a means toachieve organizational learning that subsequently leads to effective decisions andactions. Thus, an effective organizational memory system must possess certaincharacteristics to facilitate organizational learning (Hackbarth, 1998). Organiza-tional memory is not just a facility for accumulating and preserving—it is also forsharing knowledge (Conklin, 1996). Consequently, the general functions of orga-nizational memory can be stated as contents of organizational memory, informa-tion acquisition, retention, retrieval, interpretation, and maintenance.

OMIS

The ability of advanced information technologies and related procedures willlead to the development and use of databases and expert systems as components oforganizational memory (Huber, 1990). The information infrastructure necessaryto support a thinking organization should be highly decentralized to best support

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 129

TABLE 1Definitions of Organizational Memory

Researchers Definition

Duncan & Weiss (1979) The whole of the cooperatively imparted knowledge and skillwithin an organization

Huber (1991) The means by which knowledge is stored for future useLiebowitz & Beckman (1998) An explicit, disembodied, persistent representation of the

knowledge and information in an organizationStein & Zwass (1995) The means by which knowledge from the past is brought to bear

on present activities, thus resulting in higher or lower levels oforganizational effectiveness

Walsh & Ungson (1991) Stored information from an organization’s history that can bebrought to bear on present decisions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

individual-level problem solving (Harvey et al., 1997). Stein and Zwass (1995) de-fined an OMIS as a system that functions to provide a means by which knowledgefrom the past is brought to bear on present activities; thus, resulting in increasedlevels of effectiveness for the organization and developing an effectiveness-basedframework for an OMIS. OMIS realizes parts of the organizational knowledgebase with the help of information and communications technologies; or realizesand supports tasks, functions, and procedures that are connected to the use of theorganizational knowledge base; or both of these (Lehner et al., 1998).

As mentioned in the section titled Organizational Memory, an OMIS shouldbe implemented with the functions of acquisition, retention, maintenance,search, and retrieval of information to support organizational learning. Theframework for an OMIS has been studied including these functions (Huber,1991; Lehner et al., 1998; Stein & Zwass, 1995; Wijnhoven, 1998). Manipula-tion systems for an OMIS should include the following subsystems, mentionedby Stein and Zwass (1995): integrative, adaptive, goal attainment, and patternmaintenance. The integrative subsystem involves the sharing of organizationalknowledge across both space and time. The adaptive subsystem includes bound-ary-spanning activities to recognize, capture, organize, and distribute knowledgeabout the environment to the appropriate organizational actors. The goal attain-ment subsystem helps the organizational actors frame and identify goal states inthe context of the organizational past, store goal states, and formulate strategiesfor achieving goal states. The pattern maintenance subsystem pertains to themeans by which human resources are preserved and developed over time at boththe individual and organizational levels. Morrison (1997) summarized the manipula-tion system’s purpose, metarequirements, and design strategies.

Stein and Zwass (1995) summarized OMISs in the literature according to di-mensions and showed many task-specific OMISs, including group–team memory,design rationale–discussion memory, project memory, meeting memory, topicalmemory, document memory, and environmental memory. Conklin (1996) devel-oped a display system to capture and share informal knowledge. Huynh, Popkin,and Stecker (1994) developed Marbles’s corporate memory infrastructure that (a)captures and leverages existing information assets, hereby promoting reuse, and(b) facilitates information dissemination across organization boundaries. In adifferent approach, Wargitsch, Wewers, and Theisinger (1998) presented anevolutionary workflow management system that supports two learning cycles(single loop and double loop) in the sense of organizational learning, which isused as an instrument for workflows. Topical memory, which offers answers toquestions about a range of topics, has been implemented under the name of An-swer Garden (Ackerman, 1994). Lindstaedt (1996) developed a web-basedgroup memory management system for growing diverse group memories duringsoftware design to explore the issues surrounding these challenges. Althoughimplementation was not done, Lehner et al. (1998) developed a model of organi-

130 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

zational information processing that is derived from organizational learning andorganizational memory approaches based on previous researches.

In an OMIS success model, which was developed based on the information sys-tem success model by DeLone and McLean (1992), Jennex, Olfman, Panthawi,and Park (1998) emphasized user satisfaction as one of the important success fac-tors. Seddon (1997) also indicated the importance of usefulness and user satisfac-tion in information system success.

Intranet

Intranet technologies are derived from Internet technologies and use Internet proto-cols: transmission control protocol/Internet protocol (TCP/IP) and hypertext trans-fer protocol (HTTP). Most definitions of an Intranet include these informationtechnology (IT) aspects. From another perspective, the Intranet can be defined asany private (TCP/IP) network that supports Internet application—primarily web(HTTP), but also other applications, such as file transfer protocol. Also, in a senseof a “virtual place” in which people exchange information and communicate, Gon-zalez (1998) defined the Intranet as “a distributed hypermedia system within an or-ganization that enables people to: access information, communicate with eachother, share what they know, and learn from other. Therefore, it changes peoples’roles, peoples’ activities, and peoples’ jobs, and, ultimately, can transform an orga-nization” (p. 97). If an Intranet is connected between two or more organizations, itis called as an extranet.

Intranets can have common functions: document management, group calendar-ing–scheduling, workgroup support, communication, and knowledge manage-ment (Coleman, 1997; Zhang & Chen, 1997). In addition to these functions, anIntranet has some different aspects regarding users, tasks, type of information, andamount of information, as compared to the Internet (Nielsen, 1997). People use theWorld Wide Web to select the documents they want for retrieval; a model of ac-cess called information pull (Gonzalez, 1998; Taylor, 1997). However, other IT isused as information push, in which information and knowledge are sent to peoplewith a previously configured profile. Compared to other ITs, an Intranet has somebenefits, including cost effectiveness; ease of set up and administration; and openarchitecture, a universal interface, inexpensive connections to all operating systemplatforms, and faster access to information. It also is better at decision making andhas the ability to build and share knowledge.

Many companies in the aviation industry have employed an Intranet and extranetfor information distribution and sharing. Within the aviation community, most de-sign teams are distributed, at least partially, during the design process. As an exam-ple, more than 192,000 individuals now use the Boeing Intranet system (Earls,1999). An extranet called GENISYS of Boeing or GOSNET of the Navy has been

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

employed to connect project team members. The GOSNET has connected severalhundred Boeing and Navy employees, sharing engineering and other data acrossstate and organizational lines (Kalin, 1998). It appears that the use of extranet-typetechnology is increasing because it offers improved efficiency of communicationand aids meeting time and budget constraints during design efforts.

Intranet for Organizational Learning

Many researchers have studied IT as an organizational learning tool (Huber,1990; Ryan, 1998; Wong & Lee, 1998). Many different types of information tech-nology have been used to facilitate information sharing, collaboration, and learn-ing—including communications networks, electronic mail, groupware, andelectronic discussion forums. However, the implementation of these technologiesis often localized to a specific function or area in an organization and limited in im-plementation due to interface problems between systems. Therefore, existing sys-tems have not provided the open architecture for the ubiquitous and ’seamless’infrastructure that is needed to support intraorganizational learning (Harvey et al.,1997). From the middle of 1990s, an Intranet has been studied as an informationinfrastructure for facilitating organizational learning because the Intranet has anopen, nonproprietary architecture (Gonzalez, 1998; Harvey et al., 1997; Hills,1997; Huang, 1998; Lehner et al., 1998; Zhang & Chen, 1997). The open architec-ture (a) makes it easy to use with other applications and administer, (b) provides anuniversal interface, (c) is relatively inexpensive to install and maintain, (d) is costeffective and ensures faster access to information, (e) improves decision making,and (f) builds and shares knowledge.

In view of constructs and processes associated with organizational learning,Lehner et al. (1998) analyzed Intranet technologies based on organizational in-formation processing (see Table 2). The overall advantage to Intranet-based or-ganizational learning support is that learning can be systematically integratedwith the work.

Intranet Portal

Portal means gateway—indicating that a portal itself is not the final destinationbut, rather, a way to reach many other places (Tkach, 1999). EIPs emerged from aMerrill Lynch report that stated “Enterprise Information Portals are applicationsthat enable companies to unlock internally and externally stored information, andprovide users a single gateway to personalized information needed to make in-formed business decisions” (Shilakes & Tylman, 1998, p. 1). Due to the constantevolution of technology and concepts, EIPs, which are also called corporate

132 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

TABLE 2Support of Intranet Technologies for Organizational Learninga

Intranet TechnologiesIndividualLearning

InformationAcquisition

InformationSharing–Interpretation

InformationDistribution

OrganizationalMemory

Access and analysis technologiesDSS/EIS/OLAP ** — — —Data mining ** ** — — —Database interfaces and gateways * ** — * *Intranet search tools ** ** — * —

Communication technologiesMessaging systems — ** ** ** *Chat systems — ** * — —Network news * ** ** ** *Electronic publishing * ** ** ** *Video conferencing — ** * * —

Coordination and cooperation technologiesWorkflow — * — * *Groupware — * ** * —

Security technologiesFirewalls — * — — —Virus protection — * * * —

Electronic commerce technologiesElectronic payment systems — — — ** —EDI — — — ** —

Support systemsOnline education and training ** * — — *EPSS ** * — — *

Note. ** = strong support; * = weak support; — = undecided or no influence; DSS = decision support system; EIS = executive information system; OLAP =online analytical processing; EDI = electrical data interchange; EPSS = electronic performance support system.

aModified from Lehner, Maier, and Klosa (1998).

133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

portals or enterprise portals, cannot be easily defined. There are several perspec-tives for this concept.

Murray (1999) classified four kinds of corporate portals: (a) EIPs, which con-nect people with information (e.g., knowledge server, www.autonomy.com; cor-porate portal server, www.plumtree.com; and illuminar, www.verano.com); (b)enterprise collaborative portals, which provide collaborative computing capabili-ties of all kinds (e.g., knowledge server, www.intraspect.com; Domino, www.lo-tus.com; site server, www.microsoft.com; and LiveLinks, www.opentext.com);(c) enterprise expertise portals, which connect people with other people based ontheir abilities, expertise, and interests (e.g., beehive server, www.abuzz.com, andorganik and persona server, www.orbitalsw.com); and (d) enterprise knowledgeportals, which combine all of these to deliver personalized content based on whateach user is actually doing. Also, Tkach (1999) classified three portals: (a) Intranetweb portals, which provide links to all the enterprise relevant sites (internal con-tent providers) and also to some external access providers; (b) information portals,which present users with a gateway providing single log on, single image, and acommon look and feel, to access the many enterprise sources of content; and (d)knowledge portals, which provide a robust substrate for building a learning organi-zation by providing all the facilities of an information catalog plus collaborativefacilities, expertise management tools, and a knowledge catalog to be used as a re-pository of institutional memory.

Compared to Intranet and other technologies, EIPs can integrate disparate ap-plications including content management, business intelligence, data ware-house–data mart, data management, and other data external to these applicationsinto a single system that can share, manage, and maintain information from onecentral user interface with a Web browser (Shilakes & Tylman, 1998). In this ar-ticle, Intranet Portal is used to indicate a knowledge portal that evolved from in-formation portal and collaborative portals and is implemented under an Intranet.The Intranet portal client is a World Wide Web browser. Users log in at theIntranet portal homepage to receive a customized homepage. The Intranet portalhomepage, which presents single and integrated access into a wide range of in-formation, provides users with a summary of reports, documents, and other in-formation objects that they have subscribed to or are authorized to receive. Thehomepage should also provide users with, for example, a directory of informa-tion objects, a keyword search engine, and various tools for exploring data.

Due to inherent properties, Intranet portals can overcome the main problems ofOMISs in enterprises that (a) resist the introduction of an OMIS, (b) lack of accep-tance of an OMIS, and (c) lack topicality and maintenance of an OMIS (Wargitsch etal., 1998). However, according to the Delphi Group survey, current Intranet portalshavesomeproblems.Oneof thebigproblemsis lackofnavigationandretrieval tools(Stackpole, 1999), which is discussed in conceptual model. To use an Intranet portalas an OMIS, lack of navigation and retrieval problems should be overcome.

134 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Information System Related Issues

Knowledge representation and structural knowledge. Knowledge canbe categorized as declarative knowledge or procedural knowledge. Declarativeknowledge (know that) is the awareness of some object, event, idea, and so forth.Procedural knowledge (know how) describes how the declarative knowledge canbe used or applied. Jonassen, Beissner, and Yacci (1993) proposed an intermediatetype of knowledge: structural knowledge. Structural knowledge, like schema, is auseful construct or metaphor for describing the ways that humans construct andstore knowledge. Because structural knowledge has been tied to memory processesand problem solving, it seems useful to prescribe instructional and learning strate-gies for fostering the acquisition of structural knowledge (Jonassen et al., 1993).Structural knowledge has been referred to as internal connectedness, conceptualknowledge, and individual’s knowledge structure.

Search strategies and processes. Information search has been studied ininformation science for the last 20 years. “A strategy is the approach that an infor-mation seeker takes to a problem” (Marchionini, 1995, p. 72). Information-seekingstrategy can be classified into two categories: analytical strategy and browsingstrategy. Analytical strategy tends to be more goal driven oriented approaches,whereas browsing strategy proceeds according to data cues as search progresses(Marchionini, 1995). In OMISs, search and retrieval can be characterized as rang-ing from active (purposeful and conscious searching) to passive (effortlessly recall-ing or fortuitously appearing; Morrison, 1997). Active data search and retrieval in-clude querying, filtering, navigation, guided exploration, and asking an expert.Passive data search and retrieval can be considered as scanning, noticing, informalpersonal contacts, and formal internal communications (Morrison, 1997). In infor-mation-seeking process, Marchionini presented a set of subprocesses: recognizeand accept an information problem, define and understand the problem, choose asearch system, formulate a query, execute search, examine results, extract informa-tion, and reflect–iterate–stop.

Agents and intelligent interfaces. Maes (1994) described an agent as a per-sonal assistant collaborating with the user. Agents are studied and applied in varioussystems. An agent can be characterized as being autonomous, communicative, goaloriented, and reactive (Huang, 1999). Examining the agent architecture and agenttheories are not the goal of this article. An agent, which is described in the conceptualmodel, belongs to the interface agent regarding the framework of an agent.

Intelligent interfaces use agents to carry out tasks associated with human–com-puter interaction (Croasdell, Paradice, & Courtney, 1997). Agents can learn by

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

monitoring a user, by receiving user feedback, and through training. An intelligentinterface adapts its interface or interaction model to fit the “perceived” need of theuser and can contain many small agents specialized to handle particular tasks(Croasdell et al., 1997). A user’s history in an OMIS contains significant hiddeninformation about the relations between organizational memories and users.Within an OMIS, locating hidden information and adapting to these relations istypically not exploited.

Cognitive Aspects of Intranet Portals

Attention, memory, and decision making. User’s cognitive limitationsshould be considered in an OMIS’s interface design. Information and knowledgeretrieval from OM require high cognitive information processing. Generally, threedistinct memories—the sensory memory, the short-term or working memory, andthe long-term memory—have been recognized (Miller, 1956; Proctor & VanZandt, 1994). Users of an Intranet portal as an OMIS use short-term memory andlong-term memory to handle personal memory and organizational memory, and,undoubtedly, sensory memory also will be used for immediate information pro-cessing. When users conduct a task involving personal memory, a user’s knowl-edge structure in short-term memory and long-term memory will be identical withthe personal memory structure. Also, even if a user partially lost the knowledgestructure in long-term memory about personal memory, the knowledge structurewill be easily recovered. However, the knowledge structures in both long-termmemory and organizational memory are occasionally not identical. This is becausemany organizational or group members handle the organizational memory, and theorganization will continuously change or add to the organizational memory.

Peoples’ ability to attend to stimuli is limited, and the direction of attention isdetermined by how well one perceives, remembers, and acts on information (Proc-tor & Van Zandt, 1994). Each node in a knowledge structure is expressed throughmetainformation or metaknowledge. The metainformation and metaknowledgeshould attract a user’s attention and awareness. If Intranet portals fail to do this, theretrieval task from organizational memory will take a long time and require exten-sive mental efforts.

Human decision making is fundamentally related to the topic of information pro-cessing(Lehto,1997).Decisionmakinghasbeenexplainedbynormative theoryanddescriptive theory at large (Proctor & Van Zandt, 1994). Lehto presented an integra-tive model of decision making. In his model, four categories of decision making aredistinguished: group, dynamic, routine, and conflict driven. An OMIS can help auser’s routine decision-making process because when a user is confronted with acertaindecisionsituation,heorshecanusehisorherpersonalmemoryandorganiza-tional memory, in which organizational information and knowledge are stored, in-

136 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

cluding past organization experience. To retrieve knowledge from the OMIS, userswill need dynamic decision making and routine decision making.

Human error. Errors are likely to occur when task requirements exceed hu-man cognitive capacity limitations (Proctor & Van Zandt, 1994). Reason (1990)classified human errors into three categories: knowledge based mistakes, rulebased mistakes, and skill based slips and lapses. Reason (1990) and Lin (1997) saidthat the human knowledge level is one of the major causes of human error. Users ofan Intranet portal have a personal memory and an organizational memory, but eachuser will have a different knowledge level in those memories. The different knowl-edge levels can cause user errors (e.g., visiting the wrong directory during a search)in information retrieval task.

Mental model. A mental model can be defined as a dynamic representationor simulation of a problem held in working memory. Mental models are often par-tial because people cannot fully understand the whole system. Organizational sci-ence abounds with shared mental models, common cause maps, shared frames,teamwork schemas, transactional memory, and sociocognition. Cannon-Bowers,Salas, and Converse (1993) defined team mental models as knowledge that is orga-nized into meaningful patterns based on some decision rule, whether it be categori-cal membership, time to execute, or cause–effect. Team mental models also can bedefined as a cognitive representation that is identical among team members (e.g.,common knowledge), a distributed configuration of representations, or as a config-uration of overlapping representations among group members (Klimoski & Mo-hammed, 1994). Team mental models play an important role in constructing orga-nizational memory. When designing the interface to Intranet portals, the propertiesof each different group memory in organizational memory should be considered tohelp users to accomplish tasks effectively and efficiently.

DEVELOPMENT OF ACONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF AN OMIS

As discussed in the previous section, the Intranet portal OMIS is related with sev-eral areas: organizational learning, organizational memory, information system,and human cognitive aspects. In this section, the framework for an OMIS and anIntranet portal framework supporting an OMIS are discussed. Based on these re-sults, the conceptual model is developed.

OMIS Framework for Organizational Learning

Based on previous researches (Barua, Chellappa, & Whinston, 1996; Huber, 1991;Kim, 1993; Maier, 1998; Nevis et al., 1995; Stein & Zwass, 1995; Walsh &

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Ungson, 1991; Wijnhoven, 1998), an OMIS should meet the following require-ments:

1. Information–knowledge acquisition: search supporting explicit and implicitknowledge

2. Information–knowledge interpretation–sharing: for collaboration, supportof the level of information access (information organization, search engines, anddynamic linking capability), interaction richness (dynamic linking capability, syn-chronous and asynchronous communication, multimedia support, interactionmanagement, and feedback), and information–interaction cost

3. Information–knowledge distribution: information pull4. Organizational memory: information, knowledge, metainformation,

metaknowledge, operational memory, and so forth

As discussed in the section titled OMIS, manipulation systems (i.e., the integra-tive, adaptive, goal attainment, and pattern maintenance subsystems) should be in-cluded in an OMIS. Individuals are constantly taking actions with an OMIS. Theyadd information to organizational memory and retrieve information from organi-zational memory. These constant interactions occur based on the individual’slearning cycle, which is the process through which those beliefs change, and thosechanges are then codified in the individual mental models, including the link fromindividual to organizational learning (Kim, 1993). Thus, an OMIS framework fororganizational learning should include the individual learning cycle, individualmental model, and shared mental model (see Figure 2). This framework illustrateshow individuals interact with an OMIS and its internal architecture.

Conceptual Model

To increase organizational learning in an Intranet portal, such as an OMIS, theIntranet portal framework is developed based on an OMIS framework. The knowl-edge structures of both personal memory and organizational memory in an Intranetportal are integrated with the proposed conceptual model.

Knowledge structure in an Intranet portal. Many groups constitute an or-ganization, and an individual may be involved with different groups at the sametime. This situation allows knowledge and information in organizational memoryto be heterogeneous and the structure of organizational memory to vary. The orga-nizational memory reflects not only the individual mental model but also a fellowworker’s mental model through the shared mental models. Multilevel representa-tions of organizational memory and knowledge structure in an Intranet portal aredepicted in Figures 3 and 4. The basic concept in Figure 3 was adopted from Anand,Manz, and Glick (1998) and modified for the Intranet portal.

138 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

CultureIndividuals Transformations Structures EcologyExternalArchives

Organizational Memory

Individual Learning

Assess

Design Implement

Observe

Individual Mental ModelsIndividual Mental Models

Individual Memory

Short-Term

Memory

Long-Term

Memory

Organizational Memory in System

Organizational Memory Information System

Shared Mental ModelsShared Mental Models

Acquisition Retention Maintenance Search/Retrieval

Integrative, Adaptive, Goal Attainment, Pattern Maintenance Subsystem

FIGURE 2 The proposed framework for an organizational memory information system.

FIGURE 3 Multilevel representation of organizational memory in an Intranet portal.

139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Intranet portal framework as an OMIS. As defined in the section titledOMIS, Intranet portals provide users with a single gateway to personal and organi-zational memory. One of the differences between a general OMIS and an Intranetportal OMIS is that the Intranet portal has a personal memory, which is able to im-prove individual learning. This means an Intranet portal framework should con-sider information–knowledge processes for both personal memory and organiza-tional memory. Based on the OMIS framework (see Figure 2), an Intranet portalframework, such as an OMIS, can be presented, as shown in Figure 5. In this frame-work, a manipulation system was not described. However, the manipulation sys-tem requirements have typically been included within Internet, Intranet, andIntranet portals. Intranet portals can cover the organizational knowledge sharingacross both space and time and representations for the retention of cross-linked his-torical information–knowledge under this framework.

Conceptual model. Based on the Intranet portal framework, a conceptualmodel is presented in Figure 6. This conceptual model focuses on the navigation and re-trieval function in an Intranet portal OMIS. As indicated in the section titled OMIS, toovercome the current Intranet portal problems, human-centered navigation and retrievaltools should be added into the Intranet portal OMIS to give users more freedom and morecontrol when they navigate–retrieve information and knowledge to perform tasks.

140 JI AND SALVENDY

FIGURE 4 Hierarchical knowledge structure from a user’s viewpoint.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

FIGURE 5 Intranet portal framework as an organizational memory information system.

FIGURE 6 Conceptual model for human-centered Intranet portal framework.

141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

An access method to personal memory and organizational method should bedeveloped based on knowledge structure, mental model, and cognitive aspects. Auser has different knowledge structures in personal and organizational memory.Organizational memory is constructed based on a shared space, which becomes aframe of reference for collaboration and provides an environment in which collab-oration takes place (Orlikowski, 1992; Vandenbosch & Ginzberg, 1996). Sharedspace is a fundamental requirement for the creation of shared understanding(Schrage, 1990). As Manheim and Fritz (1998) indicated, the participant in a vir-tual work context is in a complex, dynamic situation. A user-oriented interfacethrough which users manage all of their information, with the aid of patterns, canbe individual, workgroup, or organizational. Patterns can be highly specified oper-ational procedures or broad templates that need to be specified in detail wheninstantiated for application in a particular situation (Manheim & Fritz, 1998). Therepresentation of knowledge structure will be shown differently because a re-quired metadata in the knowledge representation will vary in personal memoryand organizational memory. The task complexity, which affects the user’s mentalworkload, will be different in personal memory and organizational memory. Jorna(1988) indicated that task presentation plays an integral role in defining the com-plexity of a task in a human–computer interface. Jacko and Salvendy (1996)showed how task complexity affects the user’s mental workload. Thus, the meth-ods for the effective presentation of the knowledge assets, which is essential totheir usability, are separately applied in personal memory and organizationalmemory. This means personal and organizational memory should be handled inseparated work spaces.

As Duncan and Weiss (1979) indicated, organizational knowledge should becommunicable. In knowledge representation, how to ensure relevance (through suf-ficient context) of retrieved knowledge is very important. To capture the context andincrease effectiveness of an OMIS, information and knowledge should be repre-sented through metainformation and metaknowledge. The metadata’s elementshave been studied by many researcher (Anderson, McArthur, Griffin, & Wason,1999; Doublin Core, 1999; Murphy, 1998). In well-known information, users canunderstand with few metadata elements, but when handling unknown information,users need many metadata elements (context) for understanding. A metadata filter,which controls metadata elements and acts like an agent depending on a user’s logfile (history), could be one of the information retrieval assistants for reducing user’stask complexity, decreasing the cognitive load on the user, and increasing the rele-vance of what is delivered to the user. For example, well-known information (to theuser) can be represented through few metadata elements, but unknown informationor new information added by a high similarity user, which means the information re-trieval pattern between the two users are very similar, will be represented with manymetadata elements and a highlighted color. The metadata filter contributions in in-formation seeking and retrieval are shown in Figure 7.

142 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

As Wickens (1990) pointed out, successful navigation depends on the existenceof correspondence between the physical representation of the world (and the trav-eler’s position therein), the traveler’s egocentric view of the world (what is seen inthe forward field of the world), and the traveler’s mental representation of theworld. Designers need to develop aids that help users gain compact overview ofthe organizational memory structure, which can reduce the cognitive and physicalload of managing a well-known organizational memory. A memory structure map,which provides a compact structure of the organizational memory structure, canhelp users in information seeking and retrieval (see Figure 7). Because users canidentify the direct path to the specific memory, they can, thus, move from onememory to another specific memory easily without repeated mouse clicks.

Unlike the Internet, users employ Intranet portals for everyday work inside thecompany. As mentioned by Morrison (1997), users actively retrieve informationfrom organizational memory with consciousness and purpose. The active retrievaltasks may be frequently performed based on the user’s history. For example, usersoften refer to project progress reports or market information repeatedly. In thesecases, users easily get to the specific organizational memory, but after they get theorganizational memory, they need “examine results” subprocess and “extract in-formation” subprocess in information seeking and retrieval process. History-basedtools, which show previously retrieved information items in specific organiza-tional submemory and are developed based on the memory structure map, can re-duce user’s mental workload in “examine results” and “extract information”sections of Figure 7. Thus, this kind of tool can reduce user’s attention workloadand can result in shortening the decision-making process. In the daily work envi-ronment, users may repeatedly visit many specific organizational memories andretrieve many items. This work environment requires users to remember the previ-ously retrieved items for future tasks and results in user’s higher short-term mem-ory and higher long-term memory load. This alleviates the need for the user toremember the previous tasks that lead to the reduction of the user’s short-termmemory and long-term memory workload. Contribution of this history-based toolcontribution in information seeking and retrieval is shown in Figure 7.

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 143

FIGURE 7 Suggested human-centered features’ contributions in information seeking and re-trieval in an Intranet portal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

CONCLUSIONS

In this article, an OMIS framework and an Intranet portal OMIS framework aredeveloped and described. For improving usability in an Intranet portal OMIS,several human-centered features are suggested. Currently, few researchers havestudied OMISs in the human–computer interaction area. Many other researchershave emphasized the importance of organizational learning, organizationalmemory, and information technologies in organizational learning. The suggestedOMIS framework is expected to connect between the human–computer interac-tion area and the other organizational learning related areas. Also, the Intranetportal is studied as an OMIS, and an Intranet portal framework is suggestedbased on an OMIS framework. The Intranet portal OMIS framework highlightsthe differences between a general OMIS and an Intranet portal OMIS, especiallyin the area of incorporating human characteristics. Furthermore, to guide thesuccess of Intranet portal OMIS development, several human-centered featuresin navigation and retrieval functions are suggested and explained based on theircontributions to information seeking and retrieval. Those tools are expected toreduce user’s mental workload and task complexity. The suggested OMISframework and the Intranet framework are expected to provide ideas for currentIntranet development direction. Companies within the aviation industry that cur-rently use the Intranet for collaboration and require increased organizationallearning technology can use the suggested frameworks to improve their currentIntranet systems.

Although the Intranet portal framework is developed based on previous re-search and human-centered features founded on and addressed relative to humancognitive aspects, a systematic experimental study is needed to evaluate the hu-man-centered features within the Intranet portal OMIS based on the proposed con-ceptual model. By adopting the experiment’s outcome through designimprovements suggested from the experimental results, an improved Intranet por-tal would provide an improved information infrastructure, increasing the organiza-tional learning effectiveness and efficiency.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, M. S. (1994). Augmenting the organizational memory: A field study of answer garden. Pro-ceedings of the Association for Computing MachineryConference on Computer-Supported Coopera-tive Work (pp. 243–252). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved January 10,2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~ackerman/pub/94b12/cscw94.final.pdf

Alstyne, M. (1997). The state of network organization: A survey in three frameworks. Journal of Orga-nizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 7(2 & 3), 83–151.

Anald, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1998). An organizational memory approach to informationmanagement. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 796–809.

144 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Anderson, T., McArthur, D., Griffin, S., & Wason, T. (1999). Instructional Management Systems learn-ing resource metadata best practices and implementation guide. Retrieved January 10, 2000 fromthe World Wide Web: http://www.imsproject.org/metadata/mdbest01.html

Argyris, C. (1994, July–August,). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review,77–85.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II. Wokingham, MA: Addison-Wesley.Barua, A., Chellappa, R., & Whinston, A. B. (1996). Creating a collaboratory in cyberspace: Theoreti-

cal foundation and an implementation. Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://cism.bus.utexas.edu/ram/papers/joc/joc.html

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team deci-sion making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp.221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Coleman, D. (1997). Collaborating on the Internet and Intranets information systems: Collaborationsystems and technology. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,2, 350–358.

Conklin, E. J. (1996). Designing organizational memory: Preserving intellectual assets in a knowledgeeconomy. Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.gdss.com/DOM.htm

Croasdell, D., Paradice, D., & Courtney, J. (1997). Using adaptive hypermedia to support organizationalmemory and learning. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2,281–289.

Datel Defence. (1999). Datel Defence. Retrieved October, 20, 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://www.dateldef.co.uk/DDL/Product4.htm

DeLone, W. J., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information system success: The quest for the dependent vari-able. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.

Domme, G., & Dillen, R. (1997). Mapping the landscape of organizational learning. European Manage-ment Journal, 15(1), 68–78.

DublinCore[Computersoftware]. (1999).MetadataElementSet:ReferenceDescription(Version1.1).RetrievedJanuary 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://purl.oclc.org/dc/documents/rec-dces-19990702.htm

Duncan, R., & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational design. Re-search in Organizational Behavior, 1, 75–123.

Earls, A. R. (1999). Intranets: The price of popularity. Retrieved September 28, 2000 from the WorldWide Web: http://www.earthweb.com/dlink.resource-jhtml.72.1274.|repository||common|con-tent|article|19990303|ij_intramerger|intramerger~xml.0.jhtml?pageNo=5&cda=true

Gonzalez, J. S. (1998). The 21st-century Intranet. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Hackbark, G. (1998). The impact of organizational memory on IT systems. Association for Information

System 1998 Americas Conference. Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://www.isworld.org/ais.ac.98/proceedings/km.htm

Harvey, M. G., Palmer, J., & Speier, C. (1997). Intranets and organizational learning. In F. Niederman(Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM SIGCPR Conference (pp. 110–116). New York: Association forComputing Machinery

Hills, M. (1997). Intranet as groupware. New York: Wiley.Huang, A. H. (1998). Intranets for organizational memory building: An exploratory study. Association

for Information System 1998 Americas Conference. Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the WorldWide Web: http://www.isworld.org/ais.ac.98/proceedings/learning_rip.htm

Huang, C. Y. (1999). Autonomy and viability in agent–based manufacturing systems. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational de-sign, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 47–71.

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organiza-tional Science, 2(1), 89–115.

Huynh, M., Popkin, L., & Stecker, M. (1994). Constructing a corporate memory infrastructure fromInternet discovery technologies. Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/CorInfSys/huynh/cmi.html

Jacko, J. A., & Salvendy, G. (1996). Hierarchical menu design: Breadth, depth, and task complexity.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 1187–1201.

Jennex, M., Olfman, L., Panthawi, P., & Park, Y. T. (1998). An organizational memory information sys-tems success model: An extension of DeLone and McLean’s I/S success model. In J. F. Nunamaker,Jr. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol.1, pp. 157–165). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing,conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Jorna, R. (1988). A comparison of presentation and representation: Lingustic and pictorial. In G. C. V.Veer & G. Mulder (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Psychonomic aspects (pp. 172–185). NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Kalin, S. (1998). Intranet profile: Two winning efforts from the U.S. Navy: One saves money; one savestime. Retrieved September 28, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cio.com/ar-chive/webbusiness/070198_navy_content.html

Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Re-view, Fall, 37–50.

Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Man-agement, 20(2), 403–437.

Lehner, F., Maier, R., & Klosa, O. (1998). Organisational memory systems: Application of advanceddatabase and network technologies in organisations (Report No. Bericht-Nr. 19, UniversitätRegensburg, Schriftenreihe des Lehrstuhls für Wirtschaftsinformatik III). Retrieved January 10,2000 from the World Wide Web: http://rrws27.uni-regensburg.de/team/klosa/publik.html#Start

Lehto, M. R., (1997). Decision making. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonom-ics (pp. 1201–1248). New York: Wiley.

Liebowitz, J., & Beckman, T. (1998). Knowledge organizations: What every manager should know.Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Lin, X. (1997). Development and validation of cognitive models for human error reduction. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Lindstaedt, S. (1996). Towards organizational learning: Growing group memories in the workplace.Computer Human Interaction 1996 [Doctoral consortium]. Retrieved January 10, 2000 from theWorld Wide Web: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~stefanie/papers/snl_txt.html

Maes, P. (1994). Agents that reduce work and information overload. Communications of the ACM,35(7), 31–41.

Maier, R. (1998). Modelling organisational information processing: Implications from organisationallearning. Proceedings of the 8th European–Japanese Conference on Information Modelling andKnowledge Bases, 26–29. Finland: Vammala. Retrieved January, 1999 from the World Wide Web:http://www-wi.uni-regegensburg.de/team/maier/ModellingOIP.pdf

Manheim, M. L., & Fritz, M. B. (1998). Information technology to support virtual work management: Acognitive information approach. The Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems in Balti-more (568–570). Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://www.isworld.org/ais.ac.98/proceedings/track12/manheim.pdf

Marchionini,G. (1995). Informationseekinginelectronicenvironments.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.McQueen, R. J. (1998). Four views of knowledge management. The Fourth Americas Conference on In-

formation Systems in Baltimore. Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://www.isworld.org/ais.ac.98/proceedings/km.htm

146 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for pro-cessing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.

Morrison, J. (1997). Organizational memory information systems: Characteristics and developmentstrategies. In J. F. Nunamaker, Jr., & R. H. Sprague, Jr. (Eds.), Information Systems: CollaborationSystems and Technology Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences(Vol. 2, pp. 300–309). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Murphy, L. D. (1998). Digital document metadata in organizations: Roles, analytical approaches, and futureresearch directions. In R. H. Sprague, Jr. (Ed.), Proceedings of 31st Annual Hawaii International Confer-ence on System Science (Vol. 2, pp. 267–276). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Murray, G. (1999). The portal is the desktop. Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://www.groupcomputing.com/Issues/1999/MayJune1999/99MJp22_PortalDesktop/99mjp22_portaldesktop.html

Nevis, E. C., Dibella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning systems.Sloan Management Review, Winter, 73–85.

Nielsen, J. (1997). The difference between Intranet and Internet design. Retrieved January, 10, 2000from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9709b.html

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science,5(1), 14–37.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation.Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/CCSWP134.html

Proctor,R.W.,&VanZandt,T. (1994).Humanfactors insimpleandcomplexsystems.Boston:Allyn&Bacon.Reason, J. T. (1990). Human error. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Romme, G., & Dillen, R. (1997). Mapping the landscape of organizational learning. European Manage-

ment Journal, 15(1), 68–78.Ryan, S. D. (1998). The influence of organizational learning culture on IT decision practices and acqui-

sition. Association for Information System 1998 Americas Conference. Retrieved January 10, 2000from the World Wide Web: http://www.isworld.org/ais.ac.98/proceedings/km.htm

Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds. New York: Random House.Scott, J. E. (1998). Organizational knowledge and the Intranet. Decision Support System, 23, 3–17.Seddon, P. B. (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success.

Information Systems Research, 8(3), 240–253.Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization. New York:

Doubleday Currency.Shilakes, C., & Tylman, J. (1998). Enterprise information portals: In-depth report. New York: Merrill

Lynch. Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sagemaker.com/com-pany/lynch.htm

Stackpole, B. (1999). The power of the portal. Retrieved March 17, 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://www.datamation.com/intra/9908port1.html

Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Infor-mation Systems Research, 6(2), 85–117.

Taylor, M. (1997). Intranets: A new technology changes all the rules. Telecommunications, 31, 39–40.Tkach, D. (1999). Knowledge portals. Retrieved January 10, 2000 from the World Wide Web:

http://www-4.ibm.com/software/data/km/advances/kportals.htmlVandenbosch, B., & Ginzberg, M. J. (1996). Lotus Notes® and collaboration: Plus ça change … . Jour-

nal of Management Information Systems, 13(3), 65–81.Walsh,J.P.,&Ungson,G.R. (1991).Organizationalmemory.AcademyofManagementReview,16(1),57–91.Wargitsch, C., Wewers, T., & Theisinger, F. (1998). An organizational-memory-based approach for an

evolutionary workflow management system: Concepts and implementation. In J. F. Nunamaker, Jr.(Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 1, pp.174–183). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Wickens, C. D. (1990). Navigation ergonomics. In E. J. Lovesey (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics1990: Proceedings of the Ergonomics Society’s 1990 Annual Conference (pp. 14–29). London:Taylor & Francis.

Wijnhoven, F. (1998). Designing organizational communication: Concept and method. Journal of or-ganizational computing and electronic commerce, 8(1), 29–55.

Wong, K. Y. L., & Lee, M. K. O. (1998). Organizational learning ability in the context of advanced ITadoption. Association for Information System 1998 Americas Conference. Retrieved January 10,2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.isworld.org/ais.ac.98/proceedings/km.htm.

Zhang, R., & Chen, J. (1997). Intranet architecture to support organizational learning. Proceedings ofthe Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, 2, 729–731.

Manuscript first received September 1999

148 JI AND SALVENDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4