We started our original chapter published in 2003 in the Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management by stating that ‘organizational learning’ and ‘knowledge management’ had become terms commonly used in the business environment that were usually associated with large-budget projects pursued by firms convinced that the only competitive advantage the company of the future will have is its ability to learn faster than its competitors (DeGeus, 1988). Although early academic discussions about these concepts date to the 1960s (Cangelosi and Dill, 1965; Polanyi, 1967), it was not until the 1990s that these topics dramatically captured the attention of managers, when Senge (1990) popularized the concept of the ‘learning organization’ and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) described how to become a ‘knowledge-creating company.’ It was also in the 1990s when the rapid evolution of information technology and the Internet allowed the development of sophisticated knowledge management tools.
Our concern in 2003 was that, while consultants were providing learning and knowledge management solutions to managers, academics (e.g. Huber, 1991; Simon, 1991; Weick, 1991) were expressing their concern about the lack of consistent terminology, cumulative work, and a widely accepted framework that connected the learning and knowledge fields. Miner and Mezias (1996) even called organizational learning theory ‘an ugly duckling in the pond of organizational theory: interesting, but living on the fringes’ (1996: 88). Furthermore, organizational learning (OL) and knowledge management (KM) were rarely discussed together. Since then, the field has evolved toward increasing integration of concepts and cross-fertilization of ideas between organizational learning and knowledge management scholars. Academic journals and conferences have been the forum in which dialogue and connections have been created. The new challenge in the twenty-first century has been the evolution of two concepts, dynamic capabilities (DC), and absorptive capacity (AC), which, again, emphasize the notion of learning and knowledge as critical for organizational success. How all the pieces fit together, however, is not clear and consensus has not been achieved.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a conceptual framework that defines and integrates OL, KM, DC, and AC and establishes a theoretical link between these constructs and performance. We begin by defining the constructs and acknowledging their distinct roots. Then, we establish the fields’ domains and their boundaries. It is important to note that since these fields are in flux, the term ‘boundary’ should be interpreted as the salient differences that distinguish the fields given the current dialogue. Next, propositions that integrate OL, DC, KM, and AC, and link them to performance are offered. Finally, we present conclusions and directions for future research.