handbooks as a tool for organizational learning: a case study

Ž .J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 15 1998 201–228

Handbooks as a tool for organizational learning: acase study

Aase Karina )

Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian UniÕersity of Science andTechnology, and RF-Rogaland Research, P.O. Box 2503, N-4004 StaÕanger, Norway

Accepted 26 January 1998

Abstract

No agreement exists about how formalization—the extent of written rules, procedures, andinstructions—influences learning in large organizations. This paper contributes to the debate bystudying a project with the objective of making requirement and procedure handbooks an efficienttool for experience transfer in an offshore oil company. Experience transfer is defined asorganizational processes for communicating experiences across organizational boundaries. Resultsshow that enabling features have to be present if handbooks are to be regarded as a tool forexperience transfer: content simplicity, handbook availability, increased awareness and usermotivation, and minimum document volume and bureaucracy. At the time of this study, theproject lacked some of these enabling features, resulting in a low degree of knowledge and use ofthe handbooks. Only those organization members participating in the project knew the handbooksand saw them as a tool for experience transfer. q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Experience transfer; Handbooks; Organization; Engineers; Learning

1. Introduction

In large, complex organizations there exists an extensive need for coordination andcommunication across organizational boundaries. Organizational processes for commu-nicating experiences can be seen as one of several means to meet these challenges.Different organizational activities can be initiated to achieve shared know-how betweendifferent disciplines and organizational units: to develop and implement computer

Ž .systems to record, analyse and disseminate experiences Aase, 1998a ; to focus onformal or informal networks or transfer personnel between different organizational units

) Corresponding author. Tel.: q47-51875152; fax: q47-51875100; e-mail: [email protected].

0923-4748r98r$19.00 q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Ž .PII S0923-4748 98 00013-7

( )A. KarinarJ. Eng. Technol. Manage. 15 1998 201–228202

Ž .Aase, 1998b ; or to emphasize a documentation system that is frequently updatedaccording to experiences. In this paper I will focus on the latter: how handbooks arerestructured and implemented in an organization with the intentions of being anexperience-based learning tool.

In a technology-based industry the use of documentation is seen as a vital element inŽ .development, design and operation Stinchcombe and Heimer, 1985 . Documentation, in

this study meaning handbooks containing requirements and procedures, is an importantpart of managing the business. Requirements and procedures are developed to give theorganization members guidelines and working methods, and to give management a wayof controlling company activities. At different organizational levels, requirement andprocedure handbooks are meant to support the workers in their operation of specificequipment or their accomplishment of certain work tasks. There have been differenttheoretical contributions assessing how procedures contribute to learning in an organiza-

Ž .tion, most often using the concept of standard operating procedures SOP . No overallŽ .agreement exists regarding how SOPs affect organizational learning Kim, 1993 . Some

view SOPs as an important part of an organization’s memory and a repository of its pastŽ .learning Argyris and Schon, 1978; Winter, 1985; Perrow, 1986 , while others argue¨

against SOPs because the use of old procedures preoccupies and delays learningŽ . Ž .Hedberg et al., 1976; Brown and Duguid, 1991 . Kim 1993 argues that both views arecorrect to some degree; the essential thing is knowing when SOPs are appropriate andwhen they are not.

The aim of this case study is to contribute to the discussion of how, and to whatextent, requirements and procedure handbooks influence learning in a complex organiza-tion. A business setting is used to study how such handbooks work in practice. A casestudy in an offshore oil company using qualitative methods has been carried out toinvestigate the results of a project aimed at making requirement and procedure hand-books a learning tool. The intention was to continuously update the new requirement andprocedure handbooks according to experiences. How this project worked, and how thenew handbooks were perceived and used by organization members, has been studied.The results give the reader a basis to understand and explain how an organizationrestructures and implements new handbooks to support experience-based learning.

2. A theoretical framework

To understand and interpret the results of this case study, a theoretical framework isbuilt to present possible explanatory variables. Emphasis is put on how a technology-based industry attended by engineers is influenced by handbooks, how handbooks maylead to formalization andror bureaucracy, and how this affects experience-basedlearning.

2.1. Engineers and handbooks

Technology-based industry is managed and staffed primarily by engineers. PerrowŽ .1986 characterizes a typical engineering group as performing work tasks that areanalyzable and can be addressed using a variety of programmed responses. Manyengineering work tasks imply improvements or modifications of existing products,

( )A. KarinarJ. Eng. Technol. Manage. 15 1998 201–228 203

processes or systems. Engineering handbooks may then supply the appropriate proce-Ž .dures or techniques to solve many of the problems that occur. Schein 1996 refers to

Ž .engineering as an ‘occupational community’ Van Manen and Barley, 1984 withŽ .members engineers sharing assumptions across organizations derived from a common

educational background, the requirements of their occupation and the shared contactwith others in their occupation. In their education, engineers learn that problems haveabstract solutions which in principle can be implemented with products and systems that

Ž .are free of human foibles and errors. Bucciarelli 1994 claims that the engineeringfaculties create an object-world thinking with abstract figures broken into discreteelements or sub-tasks. This may be useful pedagogically, but Bucciarelli states that if weallow these figures to direct our thinking, we might conclude that engineering practice isan extremely orderly, rational process in which creative thought can be contained in a

Ž .single box. Ferguson 1992 also documents that engineering education since World WarII is dominated by a trend away from knowledge that cannot be presented as mathemati-cal relationships. In this way the art of engineering has been pushed aside in favour ofthe analytical ‘engineering sciences’, which are higher in status and easier to teach.

Ž .Kunda 1992 studied engineering culture in an American high-tech company, anddescribed the main concern of engineers to be, not surprisingly, technology and itsaesthetics. Engineers were driven by a fascination with ‘neat things’ or ‘bells andwhistles’—challenging features to design, interesting problems, and sophisticated, state-of-the-art technology. Further, Kunda described an engineer’s commitment as primarilyto the technology rather than to the company; rather than allowing business criteria toshape their work, they are motivated by a preference towards ‘creeping featuritis’. Muchin accordance with Kunda’s description of the engineering culture in his case company,

Ž .Schein 1996 summarizes an engineering community by the following characteristics:Ž . Ž .a based on science and available technology, b pragmatic and oriented towards useful

Ž .products and outcomes, c the ideal world is one of elegant machines and processes,Ž .and d preference for linear, simple cause and effect, quantitative thinking. Schein

claims that engineers and technocrats are attracted to engineering in the first placebecause it is abstract and impersonal. Engineers are designers of products and systemsthat are basically designed to require standard responses from their human operators, orideally, to have no human operators at all. In other words, one of the key themes inengineering culture is the preoccupation with designing humans out of the systemsrather than into them.

The above description makes engineers’ preference for requirement and procedurehandbooks easily understood based on their background, education, and cultural aspectswithin engineering. Related to experience-based learning, this may lead to a set oflogical andror rational approaches or means. Managers with an engineering backgroundwill likewise perform their work emphasizing rules, guidelines and procedures, and notattach similar importance to discussions, human interaction and user involvement.

2.2. Handbooks, bureaucracy and learning

The ideal bureaucracy was originally designed to eliminate inefficiency and waste inŽ .organizations Weber, 1971 , but one of the negative side effects was too much red tape

or paperwork. Still, bureaucratic mechanisms are found in nearly every formal organiza-


tion today, due to organization form, management practices, company size and historicŽ .preference for bureaucratic mechanisms Stinchcombe and Heimer, 1985; Remøe, 1984 .

Formalization—the extent of written rules, procedures, and instructions—is a centralfeature of Weber’s bureaucratic ideal type, and organizational research often presentsconflicting empirical findings focusing on the impact of different degrees of formaliza-

Ž .tion Adler and Borys, 1996 . Adler and Borys expand these contrasting assessments byreferring to different types of formalization in bureaucracies.

In an enabling type of formalization, procedures provide organizational memory thatcaptures lessons learned from experience. Formalization then codifies best-practiceroutines to stabilize and diffuse new organizational capabilities. In the study of Japanese

Ž .management techniques in automobile manufacturing, Adler 1993 referred to thesignificance of formalization and standardization. The case plant appeared to havesustained high levels of productivity, quality and worker motivation despite the highdegree of bureaucratic mechanisms. Adler uses the term ‘a learning bureaucracy’ on theplant, and focuses on three interrelated elements to explain the worker’s positiveresponse to an intense standardization and formalization. First, Tayloristic principles of‘scientific job design’ were implemented in a democratic way sustaining both perfor-mance improvement and worker morale. Second, procedures were designed to encour-age learning on the part of a work force assumed to share a common goal of productionefficiency and quality. Third, these learning-oriented characteristics of the organization’sformal systems were combined with distinctive characteristics of the informal organiza-tion—culture, trust between workers and managers, and balance of power between

Ž .labour and management. Stinchcombe and Heimer 1985 also claim that a bureaucraticmechanism like standard operating procedures embodies organizational learning, mean-ing that the virtue of standard operating procedures is not that they are standard, but thatthey are improved incrementally according to experience.

On the other hand, in a coerciÕe type of formalization, procedures are substitutes for,rather than complements to commitment. Instead of providing committed employeeswith access to accumulated organizational learning and best-practice templates, coerciveprocedures are designed to force reluctant compliance and to displace opportunistic

Ž .efforts Adler and Borys, 1996 . Bureaucratic mechanisms are then perceived asŽ .considerable barriers to learning. Brown and Duguid 1991 argue that as opposed to

such coercive formalization, learning-in-working is essential. Attempts to strip awaycontext should be examined with caution. They claim that reliance on formal descrip-tions of work, explicit syllabi for learning about it, and canonical groups to carry it outimmediately set organizations at a disadvantage when it comes to learning.

To study formalization, three different dimensions should be emphasized according toŽ . Ž . Ž .Adler and Borys 1996 : a the features of the system, b the process of designing the

Ž .system, and c the implementation of the system. The characteristics of written rules,procedures and instructions depend directly on their features and on how they areimplemented. The features themselves are influenced by the design process and thegoals that govern it. Viewing the enabling formalization type as a role model, thefollowing aspects should be noted connected to the three dimensions above.

The features of an enabling formalization approach should give the users understand-ing and knowledge of the work processes they perform to obtain a better basis for


Ž .improvements Adler and Borys, 1996 . Enabling procedures should be designed to helpusers determine whether their work process is operating well, help them navigatecontingencies of the real work process, and help them identify improvement opportuni-ties.

If the rationale underlying the design of a formalization system is to obtain a highdegree of usability, the design process must focus on user involvement. The literature onusability establishes the importance of user involvement to create a subjective sense of

Ž‘buy-in’ and improve the quality of the system Leonard-Barton and Sinha, 1993; Ives.and Olson, 1984 . Further, employee participation improves morale and performance

Ž .Cotton et al., 1990 , and has a positive effect on both attitudes and technical outcomes.Ž .Adler and Borys 1996 further claim that flexibility in changing procedures enables a

document hierarchy that supports employee’s understanding, and an organizationalmemory that create good learning conditions.

The process of designing a formalization system and its features are typically shapedŽ .by the specific implementation context right from the outset Adler and Borys, 1996 .

Participation may be especially important in developing and implementing commonrequirements and procedures because organization members often have negative atti-

Žtudes due to earlier projects leading to red tape and bureaucratization Hale, 1990;. Ž .Remøe, 1984 . Hale 1990 also argues that the normative nature of company rules is

something imposed from the outside by someone else.

3. Research setting and methods

To study how formalization influences experience-based learning, this paper focuseson a project of restructuring and implementing a set of functional requirement andprocedure handbooks in an offshore oil company operating in the North Sea. The project

Ž .—Alpha a pseudonym —was initiated in the case company based on the objective ofachieving an enabling type of formalization. This would in turn lead to experiencetransfer, defined as organizational processes for communication of experiences acrossorganizational boundaries. 1

The case company is a large and complex organization in charge of offshoredevelopment projects with many organizational units, contractors and subcontractorsperforming planning, design, construction and operating activities on offshore fieldinstallation.

3.1. Research focus

How organization members perceived and evaluated the results of the Alpha projectwas an essential part of the study. One of the main goals of Alpha was to make the

Ž .documentation hierarchy i.a. requirements and procedures more efficient to contributeto experience transfer in parts of the company. One of the results of Alpha was a

1 For a more thorough discussion of the case company’s total strategy on experience transfer, see Aase,Ž1998b: Experience transfer systems in an oil & gas company-formal descriptions and informal perceptions in

.prep. .


Žrestructuring of documentation into functional areas e.g., maintenance, production.management represented in requirement and procedure handbooks for each functional

area. To examine Alpha’s results, the following questions were developed:1. Do organizational members know the requirement and procedure handbooks?2. Is there an actiÕe use of the handbooks in the organization?3. Are the handbooks updated based on experiences?4. How do organizational members consider use of handbooks as means for experience

transfer?If answering these questions reveal little knowledge of the handbooks, no active use ofthem and virtually no revision based on experiences, it is reasonable to claim that theAlpha project did not reach its objectives—making handbooks an effective means forexperience transfer. This conclusion could be confirmed by asking how organizationmembers themselves evaluate the handbooks as a learning tool.

To test knowledge and use of the handbooks, two of 18 functional areas were chosenas more detailed observation units for this study: experience transfer and health, safety

Ž .and enÕironment HSE . The handbook of experience transfer should be of considerableimportance for the focus of this study: learning from experiences in large, complexorganization. The handbook of health, safety and environment was chosen to representan additional organizational function, and because it is an area in which learning fromexperience offers many benefits. Together with improving the HSE standard of thecompany it has a cost saving potential to avoid repeating mistakes. Learning fromaccidents, incidents or near-misses is highly focused in the industry today, but improve-ments are still needed. Working conditions at future offshore installations or plantsdepend on a successful transfer of diverse information from numerous operationalsources to design, making this information available to members of design teams at right

Ž .times in the design process Hanssen-Bauer, 1990; Aase and Wulff, 1997 .

3.2. Organizational setting

The case company is one of the oil companies operating in the North Sea, and theŽ .exploration and production E&P business area is the focal area and the main source of

information. E&P has about 5000 employees and is responsible for exploration, projectplanning, development and operation of offshore installations, and is divided into sectorsincluding operations, technology, international activities and exploration and develop-ment. Support, functions including accounting, organization and personnel and health,safety and environment are organized as staff units.

E&P has during the last five years focused on the importance of masteringsystematic experience transfer due to economic pressure in the offshore business. Thefollowing philosophy concerning systematic experience transfer illustrates this:

‘To maintain and strengthen its business position, E&P has to master the use ofexperiences as a national and international competitiÕe adÕantage better thanother offshore oil companies.’

Due to of tougher business conditions together with awareness of the significance ofsystematic experience transfer, several efficiency activities were initiated in E&P in the


beginning of the 1990s. A large efficiency and restructuring program aimed at reducingoperation costs started in the middle of 1992, and gradually became an overall project

Ž .covering all E&P activities not merely operationrproduction . The main goal of thisprogram was to become the most cost effective operator in the North Sea throughdeveloping common operational strategies and restructuring E&P’s organization. Costefficiency was to be improved by at least two billion. NOK a year before the end of1994. One of the strategies to achieve this was to establish common technical standards,systems and procedures, and to coordinate technical services.

3.2.1. The Alpha projectAs part of the large efficiency program, the Alpha, project, aiming at procedures,

experience transfer and standardization, was initiated with the main part carried out inE&P in 1993, and some follow up activities in 1994. Parts of the Alpha project acted asthe basis for the field work of this study. Four different project areas were established:Ž . Ž . Ž .1 requirements and procedures, 2 technical standardization, 3 computer systems andŽ . Ž . Ž .4 experience transfer. Project areas 1 and 4 are the focus of this study. One of thebackgrounds for Alpha was that the efficiency program found that about 800 different

Ž .handbooks existed in E&P, and many of them about 450 to 600 had the status of beingmanagement proceduresrdocuments. One of the objectives of the Alpha project wastherefore stated as:

‘ . . . on the basis of existing requirements and procedures, to develop commonrequirements and procedures within the business area E&P. These commonrequirement and procedure handbooks should as little as possible act bureaucraticand detail regulating, and the volume of the handbooks should be as little aspossible without having consequences for necessary control and management.’

Ž .Project area 1 , requirements and procedures, started out by gathering all availabledocumentsrhandbooks. This documentation was then sorted in different categories, anddifferent functionalrmanagerial areas were developed. A preliminary categorization wassent to different organizational units for comments, and the result was 18 differentfunctional areas with specific responsible organizational units. The organization wasthen asked to nominate candidates to 18 different work groups that would developrequirement and procedure handbooks within each functional area based on the existingdocumentation that had been gathered. The work in these groups was based on theprinciple that E&P personnel were well qualified for their jobs, and detailed procedureswere no longer necessary. The rest of the organization was involved in the project onlythrough presentations and commenting on the handbooks.

3.2.2. The handbooks 2

The objective of dividing the business into functionalrmanagerial areas was thatthese areas as far as possible should be independent of the organizational structure. A

2 At the time of the Alpha project, the handbooks were developed in manual, written versions. For a furtherdevelopment of the handbooks in an electronic format, see Aase, 1998a: Learning from Experiences through

ŽInformation Technology—Information Processing or Support for Human Inquiry under revision for Account-.ing, Management and Information Technologies .


functional area should not be tied to one specific organizational unit, but represent afunction performed across several organizational units. Examples of functional areaswere platform operation, maintenance, reservoir and production management, HSE,technology management, and financial services. Experience transfer was also defined asone of the 18 functional areas. The 18 requirement and procedure handbooks became animportant part of the documentation hierarchy as shown in Fig. 1.

The requirement and procedure handbooks could lead to more specific technicaloperation orders to manage performance. Also, operation guidelines or administrationguidelines could be developed for a specific plant, department or technical area.

All handbooks were written based on a common structure. Therefore, each handbookwas structured according to the following main elements or headings: application area,philosophy, strategy, requirements and procedures. Examples of the specific contents

Ž .of the two handbooks experience transfer and HSE structured according to the mainelements are shown below.

Experience transferApplication area Use of systematic experience transfer within improvement activ-

ities in E&PPhilosophy Realization of the profits of continuous improvement through

systematic experience transferStrategy Identify goals, using functional networks for improvement of

handbooks, technical standards and computer systems, trainingwithin systematic experience transfer, personal goals and re-wards, existing and new information systems

Fig. 1. Documentation hierarchy.


Requirements Specified within the areas: general handbooks, technical stan-dards, computer systems, experience reports

Procedures No procedures at present time

HSEApplication area To be applied by all E&P’s divisions, staffs and units. System-

atic activities to plan, achieve and maintain HSE.Philosophy E&P’s area of activity should not cause accidents, damage,

Žpollution, losses or work-related diseases further describedthrough 11 main principles for identification, planning, organiz-

.ing and accomplishing HSE activities .Strategy Described within areas including management engagement, or-

ganization, personnel developmentrtraining, technical specifica-tions, operational procedures, risk identification and communica-tionrmotivation

Requirements Specified within the areas: general accidentsrincidents, workingenvironment, environment, technicalroperational safety, emer-gency and security

Procedures No procedures at present time

These examples represent the first issues of the handbooks, and revision should takeplace approximately once a year. Procedures for the two specific handbooks were notyet developed due to time pressure. Discussions were held about moving some of the

Žrequirements down to the procedure level, or developing new procedures e.g., ‘experi-ence transfer within areas of priority within each functional area’, ‘toxicity test of used

.drilling mud’ .

3.3. Methods

Ž .The study is based on a case study research design Yin, 1989 . Observation,document analysis and interviews were used to explore the process of using documenta-tion as a means for experience transfer. These qualitative methods were chosen because

Žthe focus of the study was to develop understanding and explanations Strauss and.Corbin, 1990 about the process of developing and implementing the handbooks. The

early phase of using the handbooks also calls for qualitative data to create a basis formanagement implications and further research.

Ž .The fieldwork was conducted during a period of three years 1992 to 1995 with themain part in 1994 and a follow-up study in 1995. A preliminary understanding of thesituation concerning experience transfer was worked out during a six-month stay in thecase company in 1992, and this resulted in a project report. This report together withfrequent stays in one of the company’s R&D departments engaged in problemsconnected with experience transfer formed a background for the fieldwork. The R&Ddepartment was also heavily engaged in the Alpha project. Time spent in the R&Ddepartment was used to attend meetings, seminars and discussions related to experiencetransfer in the case company.


3.3.1. SampleThe main part of the fieldwork for this specific study was conducted in 1994 during a

three-month stay in an E&P department. The subjects were line managers and HSEpersonnel mainly conducting their jobs onshore. Most of them had some or extensive

Ž .offshore experience 75% , and some of them still worked offshore. More than 50% ofthe subjects had been in the organization for more than 10 years. Answers wouldtherefore reflect the their experience with different parts of the company. Line managerswere chosen based on the criterion that different sectors in E&P should be represented.Further, it could be expected that they needed functional handbooks at a strategic andplanningrdesign level, and that their management role would affect the implementationof the handbooks. HSE personnel were chosen to map conditions related to the HSEhandbook, defining them as users at an execution level. A few individuals were directlyinvolved in the Alpha project. More than 75% of the sample were educated as engineers,while the rest had various backgrounds such as economist, medical practitioner, humanfactors specialist, occupational health specialist and nurse.

Subjects in the follow-up study conducted in 1995 were selected from the company’stelephone book, based on the criterion that different departments or sectors in E&P

Ž .should be represented. Line managers e.g., department or sector managers were chosento participate in telephone interviews. All of them had backgrounds as engineers, eventhough most of them today functioned in management positions. All respondents hadbeen in the organization for more than eight years, and had some or extensive offshoreexperience.

3.3.2. Data collectionŽ .Data were gathered at the same time as the Alpha project took place 1993–1994 .

Ž . Ž .The data collection was based on four data sources: 1 semi-structured interviews, 2Ž . Ž .documents, 3 observations and 4 telephone interviews.

3.3.2.1. Semi-structured interÕiews. A total of 38 interviews were conducted, 26 of themwith line managers and 12 with HSE personnel. Three of the interviews had tworespondents, where the initial respondent had invited another person to take part in theinterview because of his or her specific knowledge about relevant topics. The interviewslasted from 1r2 to 3 h. An interview guide containing general questions aimed at all

Žinformants and specific questions aimed at different groups of informants line man-.agers, participants in the Alpha project, HSE personnel was used. Questions in the

interview guide were open-ended, and interviews conducted more or less structured withpossibilities to follow the informant’s own lines of discussion. At the end of eachinterview the interview guide was used to make sure that all relevant aspects werecovered. Relevant questions from the interview guide are reported in the Appendix A.

3.3.2.2. Documents. Documents describing philosophies and goals regarding experiencetransfer were read to give general insight into the area of this study. Seminar reports,minutes of meetings and other relevant documents from the R&D department were alsoread to give information about experience transfer in the case company. Handbooksrmanuals and project documentation was read to gain knowledge about the Alpha project.


All documents were used as a basis for developing questions and interview guide, and todescribe the organizational setting.

Ž3.3.2.3. ObserÕations. During the stays in the organization R&D department, and.E&P , field notes were written based on informal conversations and observations. These

field notes provided general insight and a knowledge about specific elements that wereused as input to interviews or interpretation of data. The field notes were also used indescribing the organizational setting. Participation at meetings gave input to developingquestions and describing the organization. Participation at HSE revision meetingsformed the basis for describing some of the revision activities.

3.3.2.4. Telephone interÕiews. Short telephone interviews with 20 respondents were usedin a follow-up study conducted in March 1995, one year after the main part of the fieldwork. This study was designed to investigate the influence of interview timing. A shortinterview guide was used with 10 questions about relevant handbooks, knowledge of thetwo handbooks of experience transfer and HSE, use of the handbooks, revision activitiesand handbooks as means for experience transfer in general.

3.3.3. Data analysisŽ .Most of the semi-structured interviews were tape-recorded 32 of 38 . And written

out in detail. For the other interviews records were written as soon as possible after theinterviews. Interview records formed the basis for analysis. Documents and field notesfrom observations were used to support interview records where this was found natural.Data from the telephone interviews were written by hand during the phone calls andcompleted immediately afterwards.

Ž .Each interview record was read with each of the four questions in mind: 1Ž . Ž .knowledge of the handbooks, 2 use of the handbooks, 3 updating of the handbooks

Ž .and 4 the handbooks as a means for experience transfer. This implied that eachinterview was read four times with different foci related to the different questions. Ineach interview the relevant text related to each of the four questions was marked withdifferent codes. Then four summaries based on the marked text for each question weremade, still containing exact sentences or phrases from all interviews with references tothe different respondents.

Based on the overall summaries for each question, categories or classes of forms ofŽ .knowledge, assertions or attitudes were developed Schatzman and Strauss, 1973 , still

using respondents’ own words or expressions. These categories were made so that everyrespondent’s answer to each question in some way or another could be incorporated inone of them. In other words, the different categories should represent the breadth of therespondents’ answers. Each category was described through quotations selected from thesummaries, representing common statements within the category.

To make conclusions about the exact distribution among categories was not the goalŽ .of this study. This was only done in connection with question 1 , knowledge of the

handbooks, because it was possible to clearly categorize whether the respondents knewŽ . Ž . Ž .the handbooks or not. For questions 2 , 3 and 4 the distribution of answers among

different assertions, attitudes and characteristics was not stated. Conclusions regarding


these questions were reached based on a combination of general impressions fromobservations, and interpretation of interview records and summaries. Conclusions aboutmeasures like little knowledge of the handbooks, no active uses of them, Õirtually norevision due to current experiences were not be reached based on quantitative criteria.Instead conclusions were drawn based on interpretation of data focusing on regularities,

Ž .patterns, explanations and possible configurations Miles and Huberman, 1994 .

4. Results

Ž .The results will be presented for each of the four questions: 1 handbook knowledge,Ž . Ž . Ž .2 handbook use, 3 handbook updating, and 4 handbooks as experience transfermeans.

4.1. Knowledge of the handbooks

All respondents knew the process of developing a new handbook hierarchy, or atleast the Alpha project that initiated the handbook activities. To get a more detailedpicture of whether respondents knew the specific contents of the handbooks, detailedquestions were directed towards the handbooks of experience transfer and HSE. Theanswers are summarized in categories as shown in Table 1, together with commonstatements and distribution among the categories.

More than 50% of the respondents do not know anything about the content of each ofthe two handbooks, or do not know them at all.

Only a small group of respondents know the handbook of experience transfer so thatŽ .they are able to express opinions about the content category I . These respondents have

all been involved in the Alpha project. And if respondents express opinions about thehandbook, they often feel that it is too complicated and difficult to understand. This ismainly due to the form and content of the handbook with a complicated languageconsisting of unfamiliar words and expressions. Other characterizations of the handbookare bureaucratic, formalistic, demanding, heaÕy, and as one of the respondents puts it:‘ . . . to haÕe a handbook to manage handbooks of management procedures is a joke’.

All departments and organizational units are responsible for the company’s HSEconditions. The HSE work is organized as a line responsibility, meaning that all line

Ž .managers should know about possible developments e.g., the HSE handbook withinthe HSE area. HSE personnel know the handbook of health, safety and environmentbetter than line managers. Respondents who can repeat main elements of the handbookhave participated in the HSE work group in the Alpha project. Even if respondents have

Ž .read the HSE handbook roughly category II , many of them state that it is not relevantfor them or that the handbook is directed only at operational parts of the organization. Inmost cases this means that they regard the content of the handbook as relevant only foroffshore installations and production units, and irrelevant for units concerned withsupport functions, commercialrmercantile tasks and other staff units. Further, respon-dents state that those HSE problems referred to in the handbook are not relevant forthem, or they do not expect that topics of current interest are taken care of in thehandbook.

()

A.K

arinar

J.Eng.T

echnol.Manage.15

1998201

–228

213

Table 1Knowledge of the handbooks of experience transfer and HSE

aCategory Experience transfer HSE Distribution

ŽI. Know the handbook specifically— ‘‘Yes I know it, but it is a bit ‘‘I was central in the deÕelopment of Few respondents less than one.participated in Alpha complicated. Difficult to under- the handbook at an early stage’’ fourth know the handbook and have

stand the content’’ opinions about the content of it.II. Know the handbook roughly ‘‘Yes, I know it. I haÕe read through ‘‘I haÕe read it once, but I don’t About one fourth of the respondents

it fast’’ directly recall any of the main ele- know the handbook, but have onlyments’’ looked through it roughly.

III. Know that the handbook exists, ‘‘I know that the handbook has been ‘‘I think we haÕe it somewhere in About one third of the respondentsbut not the content deÕeloped, but I haÕe not used it our bookshelf. But we haÕen’t sat state that they know the handbook,

or read it’’ down and eÕaluated the content’’ but nothing more.IV. Do not know the handbook ‘‘I don’t know the handbook’’ ‘‘I haÕe not seen the handbook and I About one fourth of the respondents

can’t repeat any of the main ele- do not know that the handbookments’’ exists.

a The distribution among the categories is the same for the two handbooks. This is coincidental and does not reflect that each respondent gives identical answer aboutknowledge of the two handbooks.


4.2. Uses of the handbooks

Ž .Most respondents did not know the handbook of experience transfer Table 1 , andcould not express specific opinions about the use of this handbook. Instead, respondents

Ž .were asked to express opinions about the use of handbooks in general or the handbook sthey specified as most relevant for their own working area.

4.2.1. The handbooks in generalSome respondents had no opinions about the use of the handbooks because they did

not know them at all. Besides this, opinions about status and use of the handbooks ingeneral varied from those who regarded them as a positive contribution, to those whostated that the handbooks definitely had low status in the case company. One of the mostpositive elements was that the project of making requirements and procedures moreefficient contributed to a well-arranged system of handbooks. The handbooks becamemore visible, and a reduction in number of requirements and procedures took place.

‘The handbooks are maybe more Õisible than before. The interest can be greaterbecause of a more orderly system and better aÕailability.’

‘Many consider it a progress because of more explicit documents through fewerand thinner handbooks.’

‘It is a clear improÕement from what we had. In old documents it could be writtenwhat screw to use for that and that, making it Õery complex.’

Even if respondents stated positive attitudes towards the handbooks, they felt thatseveral conditions had to be fulfilled in order to maintain the benefits stated in the Alphaproject. The main condition seemed to be to prevent an uncritical development of local

Ž .operational guidelines Fig. 1 or descriptions. If this was allowed, the amount ofdocumentation would easily increase to the same as before Alpha.

‘Procedures are changed to get people to think again and focus not entirely ondetailed specifications. But the local guidelines are really the old procedures, justrearranging the document hierarchy. Produced one metre of procedures and tenmetres of guidelines!’

‘It is impossible to know the content of all the handbooks. And there are also anunknown number of other documents like operational descriptions and localguidelines.’

In addition to transforming old procedures into local guidelines in the new documenthierarchy, many respondents stated that old documents were still in use in parallel withthe new handbooks.

‘Old management or administration documents still exist. A considerable doublegame is going on.’

‘Old documents are still in use because the new ones are not yet deÕeloped.’

‘ A lot of people stick to the old document hierarchy as long as possible.’


Reasons for continued use of old documents were said to be:

‘the cultural change the new handbook philosophy would imply was not prepared.’

‘new documentation is yet not deÕeloped.’

‘at installation X, it has to do with their culture— they are Õery conserÕatiÕe.’

( )‘somebody will always need cookbooks detailed procedures to disclaim responsi-bility.’

Many respondents stated that the handbooks were placed in the bookshelf, and thatthey had little practical importance in their work. Some respondents said that they actedaccording to other documents, for instance on a corporate level. Others explained thatthe handbooks were general, and that they behaved according to more detailed opera-tionradministration orders andror guidelines. Others merely stated that handbooks ingeneral were not important in the accomplishment of their work tasks.

‘The handbooks haÕe definitely low status.’

‘The handbooks were of course put in the bookshelf, but with us they haÕe Õerylittle practical importance because we act according to corporate documents.’

‘Most of the books will not be used daily at any time, but they put demands on ouroperational descriptions.’

( )‘For me they the handbooks are placed in the bookshelf. I looked through themwhen I receiÕed them, but I reckon that I know them.’

Even though use of the handbooks seemed to have little effect on the daily work ofthe respondents, occasionally the handbooks are taken into account as a consequence ofthe respondent’s sense of duty.

‘One is forced to use the handbooks to aÕoid mistakes, because eÕerything we dois regulated by programmes. So one has to liÕe up to what’s stated in these books.’

‘The handbooks are requirement and procedure documents for the business area,and a management decision is made that we are to work according to them.’

Many respondents answered by using combinations of the statements above. Arespondent could have positive attitudes towards the reduction of documents, but stillthink that the handbooks had little practical importance or that old documents were stillin use.

( )4.2.2. The handbook of health, safety and enÕironment HSERegarding use of the HSE handbook respondents were asked to define the users of

the handbook and specify the most active user groups together with opinions about theŽ .acceptance reception of the handbook in their own organizational unit.


Platform personnel, operational units and HSE personnel were clearly defined asactive users of the HSE handbook. Even HSE personnel agreed that the handbook wasprimarily written for offshore activities. In the handbook, users are defined through thefollowing statement: ‘The handbook of health, safety and enÕironment should be appliedby all E&P’s diÕisions, staffs and units’. HSE personnel stated that further work had tobe done to adjust the handbook to onshore parts of the business area.

Ž .Most line managers did not know the content of the HSE handbook Table 1 , andalso stated that personnel in their unit were not familiar with the handbook. Othersexplained that HSE problems relevant for their organizational unit were not handled inthe handbook because the HSE handbook was an operational document, and theythemselves were in the periphery of operationrproduction. Others stated that HSE wasnot a problem in their unit: ‘‘HSE within my function is clearly not the most important,’’‘‘we don’t haÕe HSE problems in our unit’’ and ‘‘we don’t haÕe any relation to HSE atall’’. According to them, using the HSE handbook was unnecessary.

4.3. Updating the handbooks

Ž .The 18 handbooks were supposed to have scheduled revisions most of them yearlyas part of improving the contents based on systematic experience transfer. A specificprocedure concerning this revisionrupdating of handbooks was stated in the experiencetransfer handbook. The procedure explained how establishment of a functional networkconnected to each handbook should be done. To coordinate these networks, an overallnetwork with participants from the 18 different networks should be established. The

Table 2Use of the HSE handbook

Assertion Common statements

I. The HSE handbook is relevant ‘‘I’m a passiÕe user, but the operational units put great emphasis onŽfor other work areas platform HSE. The offshore management group, the platform organization and

installations, operational units, other parts of the platform are actiÕe users’’.HSE personnel than the respon-

dents’‘‘HSE personnel are the most actiÕe users. But it is an operationalhandbook, and in our situation other documents are more releÕant’’

II. The content of the handbook ‘‘In our unit, the HSE handbook is not often brought out of thedoes not give answers to relevant bookshelf because we do not find answers to releÕant problemsproblems for respondents there’’

‘‘We do focus on some HSE aspects, especially on the enÕironmentalside. But I don’t expect, at any point, that such problems are treatedin the book’’‘‘The handbook is Õery operational, and we are in the periphery ofoperation. The problems in the handbook are not Õery releÕant forus’’

III. Personnel in the respondents’ ‘‘In my unit personnel do not know the HSE handbook because it isorganizational units have no rela- not interesting in our daily actiÕities. But it should maybe be oftionship to the handbook importance?’’

‘‘The HSE handbook has not been registered with us, I think that Iam the only person knowing it. We don’t haÕe any large HSEproblems in our department’’


Žprocedure also stated different roles to be filled by participants in each network network.leader, source coordinators, users, etc. , and their responsibilities. Respondents charac-

terized these descriptions as complicated and difficult to understand.The first versions of the handbooks were published in the period from May 1993 to

April 1994. All handbooks should then be revised within approximately one yearaccording to directions in the handbook of experience transfer.

4.3.1. ReÕision processes in generalAll line managers assessed one or two specific handbooks to be equivalent or closely

related to their own working area, and therefore to be most important for them.Questions were therefore directed at revision of these specific handbooks and revisionactivities in general.

The answers reveal how respondents’ organizational units have planned their revisionactivities in connection with specific handbooks, and to what extent this is doneaccording to the directions in the experience transfer handbook. Most respondents do notknow this handbook, and therefore have no knowledge of revision according to these

Ž .directions establishing functional networks, different roles in the network, etc. . Linemanager’s statements regarding revision activities are shown in Table 3. The activitiesare classified according to how comprehensive their revision activities are, from noactivity to more detailed activities.

Respondents had to some extent knowledge of revision activities through functionalnetworks if they were among the pilot projects. Four handbooks were chosen as pilotprojects and given extensive support in the revision activities according to the directionsin the experience transfer handbook. This support was given by the organizational unitresponsible for the handbook of experience transfer, and by the R&D departmentinvolved in the work with experience transfer. Other respondents had knowledge ofrevision activities only if they were in an organizational unit responsible for a handbook.If none of these conditions were present, respondents said something about commenting,or knew nothing about revision activities at all.

4.3.2. ReÕision of the HSE handbookThe HSE staff responsible for the HSE handbook asked management in all E&P’s

organizational units to nominate candidates for participation in the network. This wasdone partly to test line manager’s motivation to participate, and partly to createownership of the HSE handbook. Reactions like ‘‘we don’t want to participate in this’’and ‘‘we don’t haÕe time’’ were common. Only a few candidates were nominated,mainly safety managers participating at request from their line managers.

Together with nomination of candidates to the network, an invitation to commentingand send revision proposals was sent to many organizational members within thecompany and to some persons outside the company. Totally, about 80 revision proposalswere received. These proposals were mainly on a detailed level: ‘regarding routines forhandling of special waste, it should appear from the declaration scheme from whatinstallation the waste has been deliÕered.’ All comments and revision proposals weresent in advance to participants in the network, and a one day revisionrcommentingmeeting was held to reach agreements about the proposals.

The revision meeting had twelve participants: seven safety managers, three from the


Table 3Revision activities

Activity Statement

I. No knowledge of revision activities ‘‘I know that there are certain reÕision actiÕities, but I thoughtthat was for other handbooks than the ones releÕant for me’’

II. No need for revision activities ‘‘Within area X we haÕe no need for reÕision and within area Ywe haÕe had some restructuring actiÕities that imply work to bedone before a possible reÕision’’

III. Lack of takeoff ‘‘We haÕe priority problems because we are in the middle of a lotof important work. But we are about to establish these sourcecoordinators . . . ’’

‘‘When our handbook was established, it was on the basis of an oldway of thinking, so we haÕe to make a lot of adjustments. We willpresent a new draft and then gather experiences from others whoare influenced by this handbook. Whether it will be throughhearings or meetings, I don’t know’’‘‘I was responsible for reÕision of some documents in thehandbook. There was little inÕolÕement from the organization,and little degree of commenting’’

IV. Commenting ‘‘I don’t know it in detail, but it will be a kind of commenting’’‘‘We had some drafts of the handbook submitted for our opinions,and had some comments’’

V. Allocated persons ‘‘We haÕe allocated persons from our unit to each functional area,and we participate at meetings related to updating of releÕanthandbooks’’

VI. Pilot projects ‘‘I’m in the reference group for one of the pilot projects regardingreÕision of handbooks. But an appointed meeting was cancelledand after that I haÕen’t heard anything’’‘‘There is a system for reÕision actiÕities through the pilotprojects that our area is part of. There is a centralized coordinatorwho receiÕes experiences and change proposals through this NNcomputer system’’

HSE staff responsible for the revision, one department manager and one licencecoordinator. Almost all participants had direct connection to offshore work places, andthis characterized the discussion. The handbook content and the revision proposals werealso offshore influenced. The discussion was aimed at reaching agreements about all therevision proposals, and was therefore held on a detailed level. No overall questionsregarding the content of the handbook were raised. Some participants were asked how

Ž .they defined the intention of the revision meeting in interviews afterwards :

‘The intention was that people should discuss, create a better product and remoÕeunnecessary parts. And that the users should gain a relationship to the handbookand haÕe an influence on it. . . . cooperation, reaching agreement and creatingownership.’


‘I understood the intention as creating a ‘Õital’ and a useful handbook. . . . afterthe handbook had functioned for a while one could giÕe feedback on how itworked or should haÕe worked.’

At the revision meeting statements like ‘the wrong people participated’, ‘theproduction units haÕe to get on the track’, ‘people representing health and workingenÕironment should haÕe been here’, and ‘lack of marketing of the handbook towardsline management’ were mentioned. These statements are in contrast to the above statedintentions of the revision meeting.

4.4. Handbooks as a means for experience transfer

Respondents were asked to express opinions and assessments about the use ofhandbooks as a means to gain successful experience transfer in the case company. Sinceall respondents had general knowledge of the Alpha project, they answered according tohandbooks as a reasonably familiar concept. Questions were on a general organizational

Žlevel, but if respondents wanted to answer according to their own working area one.specific handbook , this was allowed.

The answers were widely divergent, and indicated that many different opinions abouthandbooks as means for experience transfer existed. Some respondents claimed that todevelop handbooks was one way of gaining experience transfer, while others clearlystated that handbooks were not an efficient means for this purpose. The variety ofopinions is illustrated in Table 4 on a scale from positive attitude to negative attitudetowards handbooks as a means for experience transfer.

Even respondents having positive attitudes towards handbooks as a means forexperience transfer, mentioned several conditions that had to be fulfilled. The followingstatements illustrate this:

‘I belieÕe in handbooks as a means for experience transfer to the extent that theyare simple, aÕailable and easy to read for most people. But the main condition isclearly that they are aÕailable.’

Yes, I think that the handbooks can function as a means for experience transfer,but it is dependent on sectors and departments starting to use them.

If handbooks were to be regarded as an efficient means for experience transfer, theAlpha project had to achieve its goals: minimum bureaucracy and volume of documentson a minimum level. The implementation process was also considered by respondents asan important condition for achieving experience transfer through handbooks. Respon-dents having positive attitudes towards handbooks as a means for experience transferknew the handbooks quite well. Respondents who participated in the Alpha project hadpositive opinions about the intention of the handbook efficiency project, but questionedconditions such as uncritical development of local operational guidelines and theorganization not being prepared for the cultural change functional handbooks would leadto.


Table 4Handbooks as means for experience transfer

Attitude Statement

Positive attitude the handbooks can function as a means ‘‘When you enter a new project and go intofor experience transfer the system of documents, you only haÕe to

make minor modifications. The system isthere, and the documents are based onexperiences’’

the handbooks now have a better chance ‘‘For us it was an improÕement because forof being read and therefore may con- the first time we got something common fortribute to experience transfer our unit. The handbook stated the basic

demands and requirements, and we haÕe theopportunity to use experiences and reÕise itfrequently’’

No attitude not answering the question directly be-cause they don’t see any relationshipbetween handbooks and experiencetransfer

Negative attitude don’t believe in handbooks as a means for ‘‘Documents are not an important means forexperience transfer experience transfer’’

‘‘I do not agree that handbooks are a meansfor experience transfer. Its too fragmented,bureaucratic and too much paperwork’’

handbooks have a bad reputation and ‘‘In our culture the attitude towards hand-will be a poor means for anything at all books has been more that they represent a

menace. It has giÕen status to write hand-books’’

Some respondents did not see any particular connection between experience transferand handbooks, and had difficulties with answering these questions. They knew aboutthe Alpha project in general, but they could not see how handbooks were related toexperience transfer. Several respondents regarded other means as more important tocontribute to experience transfer.

‘Experience transfer demands changed organizational behaÕiour, focus on thehuman being.’‘Experience transfer based on the relationship between technical and commercialsectors to achieÕe improÕed agreements due to experiences and ambitions aremore Õaluable than handbooks.’

Focus on attitudes, communication and human interaction were also mentioned. Otherrespondents expressed negative attitudes towards handbooks as means for experiencetransfer because of too much paperwork and a focus on bureaucratic mechanisms.

4.5. Follow-up study

The follow-up study was designed to investigate whether there had been an importantŽ .development in organizational member’s answers to the questions: 1 knowledge of


Table 5Follow up study on knowledge, use, revision and attitudes regarding handbooks

Research question Development Common statements

Ž .1 Knowledge of hand- More than 50% of the respondents ‘‘I have no knowledge of the hand-books still do not know the handbook of book of experience transfer’’

experience transfer or its content.‘‘I know the handbook of experiencetransfer, but nothing more’’

Most respondents know that the HSE ‘‘I know the HSE handbook, but Ihandbook exists, and have seen it. don’t know the contents of it’’But still, more than 50% have notread it or do not know its content

‘‘I don’t know the HSE handbookbecause it is not relevant’’

Ž .2 Use of handbooks The handbook of experience transfer ‘‘No use of the handbook of experi-is still not in use ence transfer’’More respondents state that the HSE ‘‘The HSE handbook is in use withhandbook is used in their org. units us as a reference book’’But still, about 50% do not use the ‘‘There is no actiÕe use of the HSEHSE handbook actiÕely. handbook in my unit’’

Ž .3 Revision activities Most respondents have not partici- ‘‘I have not participated in anypated in revision activities connected revision activities’’to their own functional area.

‘‘The handbook number X has beensent to us for comments.’’

If respondents have participated in ‘‘We are responsible for revision ofrevision activities, this has been handbook number Y, but it is toothrough commenting. early to say how it works’’A few respondents know about the ‘‘We have a network to manageuse of functional networks in upda- experience transfer and revision ofting the handbooks. These respon- the handbook’’dents are responsible for the revisionof a handbook.

Ž .4 Attitudes towards Opinions about handbooks as a ‘‘The handbook system is very im-handbooks means for experience transfer are portant. It is the only way to com-

still widely spread on a scale from municate aspects from the produc-positive to negative attitude tion unit to E&P’’All respondents now have a more ‘‘I have difficulties in seeing thatclear opinion that is either positive handbooks can describe this. Cultureor negative. That means that fewer and attitudes are more important,respondents are placed in the middle and working methods’’of the scale

Ž . Ž . Ž .handbooks, 2 use of handbooks, 3 revision activities and 4 handbooks as means forŽ . Ž .experience transfer. Questions 1 and 2 were to a larger extent directed towards the

two handbooks of experience transfer and health, safety and environment, and not asmuch the handbooks in general. The results are shown in Table 5.

Knowledge of the handbook of experience transfer had not increased, and it was notused in the respondents’ organizational units. The HSE handbook was referred to as part


of relevant handbooks for line managers more often than in the original study, eventhough many still had not read the handbook or knew its specific content.

Little development with regard to revision activities had taken place. Only respon-dents responsible for revision of specific handbooks knew about functional networks aspart of updating.

Respondents had more clearly defined opinions about handbooks as a means forexperience transfer. These opinions were often either clearly positive or clearly negative.Some respondents were positive towards the handbook system as a means for rationaliz-ing the document hierarchy, and saw positive side effects when it came to experiencetransfer.

4.6. Summary

Findings recorded in this study show that at this point time in the implementationprocess of a set of new requirement and procedure handbooks, many organizationalmembers were not familiar with them. The process of making a document hierarchy

Ž .more effective the Alpha project was considered positive, but common attitudestowards the handbooks were: sense of duty, no practical importance, documents placedin the bookshelf and uncritical development of new procedures. Line managers had noactive attitude towards the handbooks of experience transfer and HSE, and definedothers than themselves as active users. If handbooks are to be considered as an efficientmeans for systematic experience transfer, conditions like availability, number of docu-ments on a minimum level, active uses of the documents etc. have to be fulfilled. Someorganization members were of the opinion that handbooks were not the right means toachieve systematic experience transfer. For them it was more important to focus onattitudes, culture, organizational behaviour and communication.

5. Discussion and implications

The discussion will primarily address possible explanations to answer the followingquestion: Why were the requirement and procedure handbooks not used in accordancewith the intentions of the Alpha project? Aspects are emphasized according to notionspresented in the theoretical framework.

5.1. Alpha— a project influenced by the engineering tradition

The case company’s objective with starting the Alpha project was a combination ofwanting to reduce the number of handbooks, making the document hierarchy moreefficient, and using this formalization system to achieve experience transfer. Theirapproach was to establish Alpha, a project created and accomplished in a typical

Ž .engineering tradition Bucciarelli, 1994; Ferguson, 1992; Kunda, 1992; Schein, 1996 .Old documents were gathered, and categorized in different functional areas, projectgroups were established, handbooks created within each functional area based onexisting documents, and sent out for comment to in relevant parts of the organization.


The Alpha project’s intention was to contribute to making a formalized documenthierarchy efficient including continuous improvements based on experience. The inten-tions of the handbook process were therefore in accordance with the aim of an enabling

Ž .formalization type Adler and Borys, 1996 .The majority of informants in the study were engineers and managers with an

engineering background. Also participants in the Alpha project were mostly engineersŽ .the predominant occupational group in the case company . So the handbooks weremade by engineers—for engineers. One of the underlying assumptions in the Alphaproject was that the handbooks should be on a functional level, making detailedprocedures and descriptions redundant. Functional handbooks were therefore aimed at astrategic organizational level and a planningrdesign level, leaving more detailed guide-

Ž .lines and instructions to the execution level Carayannis, 1996 . In this perspective, thefunctional handbooks should be aimed directly towards the informants of the study, linemanagers. Informants in the HSE category were from all organizational levels: strategicplanningrdesign execution. Results showed no significant differences in the answersamong informants from the different organizational levels in the case company.

5.2. The features of the handbook project

Alpha’s objective was to transform a traditionally coercive document hierarchy withnumerous detailed procedures into a common, well-arranged document system withpossibilities for improvements according to experience. Users reported positive attitudestowards a reduction in number of documents and a more structured hierarchy ofhandbooks. Still, this did not imply that users would gain a better understanding of theirwork processes and thus increase their ability to make improvements according to

Ž .experience Adler and Borys, 1996 . The content of the handbooks was not yetsatisfactory because it did not reflect the user’s work methods and common problemsŽ .e.g., Table 2 .

The 18 functional areas in the handbook project covered both technical and organiza-tional matters. The two handbooks studied in detail in this paper, experience transfer andhealth, safety and environment, covered typical organizational matters. Since the respon-dents were not very familiar with these two handbooks, questions were directed also

Ž .towards typical technical handbooks e.g., Table 3 . Given the technology-based indus-try the case company represents, a reasonable assumption would be that it is easier toachieve experience-based learning through the technical handbooks. No such distinctionbetween technical and organizational handbooks was discovered in this study.

5.3. The process of designing the handbooks

After a decision to develop common requirements and procedures within E&P wasmade, great emphasis was put on the product: the 18 different handbooks. The Alphaproject had a time schedule implying that the handbooks should be developed andimplemented within a short period of time, and the focus was to get them ready withinthis time limit. This had consequences for the extent of user involvement throughout theorganization. Even though the handbooks were developed on time, results show that


potential positive side effects like increased awareness, information diffusion, trustbuilding and process legitimacy were missing. These side effects are often shapedthrough an increased focus on the process: using time, resources and participation tocreate better conditions for implementation of the handbooks. In turn, this could haveled to better results regarding knowledge, use and revision of the handbooks. In thisstudy, one of the best indicators to explain whether respondents knew specific hand-books was their participation in the project groups designing the handbooks. Influencedby the engineering tradition, the Alpha project was more engaged in getting the productdesigned and implemented in the organization than focusing on process and user

Ž .involvement Schein, 1996 .The new handbooks were developed based on a structural rearrangement of old

documents. Respondents’ viewpoints demonstrated that the content reflected ‘old waysof thinking’ and that current problems were not treated in the handbooks. The timepressure may explain why the handbook quality was not yet satisfactory, and the Alphaproject counted on improved versions of the handbooks by the first revision. Respon-dents in the case company perceived the revision processes as complex and bureaucraticwith different functional networks and network roles organized in addition to thetraditional line organization.

5.4. The implementation of the handbooks

Even if the Alpha project tried to change the organization by transforming thedocument hierarchy by taking a new, enabling orientation, the implementation processcould act coercively due to organizational resistance. Participation once again plays animportant role. Even though Alpha was a comprehensive project with regard to bothbudget and authority, the schedule made it impossible to involve organizational mem-bers outside the project groups more than through traditional document commenting.Respondents connected the handbooks to the Alpha project, a project in which they hadnot participated, and they therefore did not have detailed knowledge about decisions,results and processes.

5.5. The historic tradition of handbooks in the offshore oil industry

Ž .The study of Stinchcombe and Heimer 1985 of engineering in large projects in theNorth Sea offshore oil industry showed that operating oil companies controlled thecomplex development projects through documentation. Cooperation between the differ-

Ž .ent companies operating oil company, contractors, subcontractors involved in anoffshore development project resulted in multiplication of documents because everything

Ž .had to be referred to many organizations for many purposes. Qvale 1993 supports thispicture by referring to strengthened legislation, government control, political reactions toaccidents, and cost overruns leading to detailed and sophisticated administrative plan-ning and control systems being implemented. The result has been a tradition of

Ž .management through documentation i.a. specifications, standards and handbooks . Thistradition is deeply rooted in the different companies in the offshore industry, andrequires substantial effort to modify.


The case company made such an effort by trying to reduce their number ofhandbooks from approximately 800 down to 18. Their principle was that employeeswere competent people not needing detailed procedures at all organizational levels. For acompany influenced by the historic tradition of documentation, this transition createdinsecurity with some employees. Efforts were made trying to include old documents inthe new handbook hierarchy, and the result was a new handbook system still containingelements from many of the old handbooks.

5.6. Time of the field work

Finally, critics may claim that it is not reasonable that organization members shouldknow and use the handbooks this short a time after the implementation. Experienceshows that changes in an organization take time, denominated as organizational slow-

Ž .ness Argyris, 1985 .The main part of the field work of this study was conducted during a three-month

Ž .period March to June in 1994. According to the original project plan of Alpha, thehandbooks should have been implemented in the organization by January 1994. Theclosing report of the Alpha project stated that this was a too optimistic time estimate,and that the organization had to prioritize implementation activities also in 1994. Eventhough the implementation process was not completed when the main part of this studytook place, it is reasonable to assume some knowledge and active use. But the resultsindicate missing knowledge and little active use of the handbooks. And the follow-up

Ž .study conducted one year after the main study 1995 showed little developmentregarding knowledge, use and revision activities. This indicates that the time of the mainstudy had no major effect on the reported results.

5.7. Implications and further research

This study shows the importance of enabling features in the planning, design andimplementation of a formalization system like requirement and procedure handbooks.Enabling features like a handbook content that gives users a better understanding of theirwork; user involvement; and flexibility in changing the handbook content are essential ifthe formalization system is supposed to support experience-based learning.

Further research should be directed at specifying these enabling features in moredetail. Under what circumstances could such features best be created? Also the transitionfrom detailed requirements and procedures to functional areas, reducing the number ofhandbooks to a minimum, should be given further research attention. How do organiza-tion members in an industry highly influenced by documentation react to this newphilosophy? The same philosophy has been adopted by the Norwegian PetroleumDirectorate in their shift from ‘detailed control’ to ‘internal control’ monitoring the oilcompanies. Applied within an oil company, the philosophy means a shift from detailedcontrol over employees to internal control leaving more responsibility to the employees.Other research questions of current interest would then be as follows: How can suchfunctional formalization systems best be integrated and used for experience-basedlearning in a complex organization? How can a functional formalization system remainfunctional and not regress into of a detailed and coercive system?


6. Conclusion

Results from the case study reported in this paper show that organization members donot perceive handbooks as an efficient means for experience transfer. The objective ofthe handbook project was that common requirement and procedure documents should bedeveloped, representing functional guidelines rather that detail regulating procedures.The handbooks should be more ‘visible’, lead to a reduced number of documents andenable organization members to improve work tasks and processes according to experi-ence. These intentions were commendable and necessary to transform traditionallydesigned requirements and procedures into a learning tool.

The new handbooks to a certain degree became more visible, and apparently led to areduced number of documents. But they did not contribute to a higher degree of

Ž .successful experience transfer. Possible explanations recorded in this study are: a theŽ .underlying engineering tradition emphasizing efficient systems and products, b time

pressure leading to an insufficient accomplishment of design and implementation of theŽ .handbooks focusing less on awareness and user involvement, c the historic tradition

Ž .procedures and handbooks have in offshore oil industry, and d organizational slownesswhere old ways of doing things still dominates. Even though the handbook project’sintentions were enabling, the implementation out led to a coercive formalization typeinstead of experience transfer.

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by the insurance company Vesta Forsikring AS. I would liketo thank the oil company for letting me participate in their activities and the respondentsfor giving their time to accomplish the interviews. I am grateful for comments on earlierdrafts of this paper from Arnstein Borstad, John Carroll, Vidar Hepsø, Jan Hovden,Henning Jakobsen, Ingemund Jordanger, Merete Svidal and Ingrid Anette Wulff. Specialthanks to Rolf H. Westgaard for guiding me on how to write an article.

Appendix A. Interview guide questions

Overall questions Interview guide excerptsŽ .1 Handbook knowledge Experience transfer

Do you know the handbook of experience transfer?What are your opinions about the content of thehandbook of experience transfer?Health, safety and enÕironmentDo you know the handbook of heath, safety andenvironment?Can you repeat some of the main elements in thehandbook?


Ž .2 Handbook uses GeneralWhat status do the handbooks have?Are the handbooks in use?Is old documentation still in use after implementationof the handbooks?Health, safety and enÕironmentWho are the users of the HSE-handbook?Define the most activerpassive users of the hand-book?How is the HSE-handbook received in your organiza-tional unit?

Ž .3 Handbook updating What plans does your unit have for organization ofrevision processes?Have you participated in some of the revision activi-ties?

Ž .4 Handbooks as means Do you regard thefor experience transfer handbooks as an effective means for experience

transfer?

References

Aase, K., 1998a. Learning from Experiences through Information Technology—Information Processing orSupport for Human Inquiry? Under revision for Accounting, Management and Information Technologie.

Aase, K., 1998b. Experience transfer systems in an oil & gas company-formal descriptions and informalŽ .perceptions in prep. .

Aase, K., Wulff, I.A., 1997. Enhancing Future Work Places by Bringing Experience into Design. InternationalErgonomics Association, 13th Triennial Congress, Tampere, Finland.

Adler, P.S., 1993. The learning bureaucracy: New United Motor Manufacturing. Research in OrganizationalBehavior. JAI Press, Vol. 15, pp. 111–194.

Adler, P.S., Borys, B., 1996. Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive. Adm. Sci. Q. 41, 61–89.Argyris, C., 1985. Strategy, Change and Defensive Routines, Harvard Univ., Pitman Publishing, 365 pp.Argyris, C., Schon, D., 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley.¨Brown, J.S., Duguid, P., 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of

Ž .working learning and innovation. Organization Sci. 2 1 , 40–57, Special issue.Bucciarelli, L.L., 1994. Designing Engineers. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT Press, 220 pp.Carayannis, E.L., 1996. Re-engineering high risk, high complexity industries through multiple level technolog-

ical learning. A case study of the world nuclear power industry. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12, 301–318.Cotton, J.L., Vollrath, D.A., Froggatt, K.L., Lengnick-Hall, M.L., Jennings, K.R., 1990. Employee participa-

tion: diverse forms and different outcomes. Acad. Manage. Rev. 13, 8–22.Ferguson, E.S., 1992. Engineering and the Mind’s Eye. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT Press, 240

pp.Hale, A.R. Safety Rules O.K.? Possibilities and Limitations in Behavioral Safety Strategies. J. Occup.

Accidents, Elsevier, Vol. 12, pp. 3–20.ŽHanssen-Bauer, J., 1990. Plattformdesign. Prosjektering av arbeidsmiljø til havs Platform Design. The

. Ž .Planning of Working Environment Offshore . Ad Notam, In Norwegian . 226 pp.Hedberg, B.L.T., Nystrom, P.C., Starbuck, W.H., 1976. Camping on seesaws: prescriptions for a self-desig-

ning organization. Adm. Sci. Q. 21, 41–65.Ives, B., Olson, M.H., 1984. User involvement and MIS research: a review of research. Manage. Sci. 30,

586–603.


Kim, D.H., 1993. The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Manage. Rev. Reprint Ser.Ž .35 1 , 37–50, Reprint series.

Kunda, G., 1992. Engineering Culture—Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Temple Univ.Press, Philadelphia, 285 pp.

Leonard-Barton, D., Sinha, D., 1993. Developer-user interaction and user satisfaction in internal technologytransfer. Acad. Manage. J. 36, 1125–1139.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, M.A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis—An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage.Perrow, C., 1986. Complex Organizations. A Critical Essay, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, 307 pp.Qvale, T.U., 1993. Design for safety and productivity in large scale industrial projects: the case of the

Ž .Norwegian offshore oil development. In: Wilpert, B., Qvale, T.U. Eds. , Reliability and Safety inHazardous Work Systems-Approaches to Analysis and Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.

Remøe, S.O., 1984. Byrakrati og Organisasjon—En Organisasjonssosiologisk Studie av Utaskjoers Oljevirk-˚Ž .somhet Bureaucracy and Organization—A Sociological Organization Study of Offshore Oil Activity .

Ž .Rogaland Research, Norwegian Univ. Press, 130 pp. in Norwegian .Schatzman, L., Strauss, A.L., 1973. Field Research—Strategies for a Natural Sociology. Prentice Hall, 140 pp.Schein, E.H., 1996. Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational Learning in the 21st Century.

MIT Sloan School of Management, Working Paper.Stinchcombe, A.L., Heimer, C.A., 1985. Organization Theory and Project Management—Administering

Uncertainty in Norwegian Offshore Oil. Norwegian Univ. Press, 350 pp.Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.

Sage, 270 pp.Van Manen, J., Barley, S.R. Occupational Communities: Cultures and Control in Organizations. In: Staw,

Ž .B.M., Cummings, L.L. Eds. , Research in Organizational Behavior. JAI Press, Vol. 6.ŽWeber, M., 1971. Makt og byrakrati. Essays om politikk og klasse, samfunnsforskning og verdier Power and˚

.Bureaucracy. Essays about politics, class, social science and values . Tekstutvalg fra Wirtschaft undŽ .Gesellschaft, 1922 Tekstutvalg fra Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 1922 og Gesammelte Aufsatze zur¨

Ž . Ž .Wissenschaftslehre 1922 . Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, 220 pp. in Norwegian .Ž .Winter, S.G., 1985. The case for ‘mechanistic’ decision making. In: Pennings, H. Ed. , Organizational

Strategy and Change. Jossey-Bass, pp. 99–113.Yin, R.K., 1989. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Revised edn. Sage.