Coffee as an antidote to knowledge stickiness

This paper considers the role of space in overcoming knowledge stickiness discussing space as both a location and a gap between other things. Qualitative case data indicates that there are three areas of space that need to be considered; physical, mental and virtual, as well as a range of reasons why space alone is not enough to support knowledge creation and learning. We argue that recognising these areas and developing them in a managed way may overcome inherent organisational learning and knowledge creation barriers. Introduction It is increasingly accepted that learning needs appropriate ‘space’ for it to occur effectively (Kets de Vries and Korotov, 2007; Edenius and Yakhlef, 2007; Guldberg and Pilkington, 2006). This space can be virtual or real and its role is to enable dialogue, interaction and collaboration; it is important, as the new knowledge desired from the learning develops in a processual (Newell et al., 2002), constructed (Elkjaer, 1999) and emergent way (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Cook and Brown, 1999). McPherson and Nunes (2004) support this need for space, but highlight that the types of space matter and that face-to-face encounters are more likely to lead to greater knowledge development and transfer. Knowledge creation, it is argued, is complex, messy and unpredictable, because any new knowledge emerges as a result of complex, cultural and interactive processes (Carlile, and Rebentisch, 2003; Firestone and McElroy, 2004; Hutchinson, 2006; Tsoukas and Vladimirou, 2001), and in terms of the ‘stickiness’ of knowledge transfer (Jensen and Szulanski, 2004). Consequently, how organisations manage learning spaces and places will affect their ability to overcome the knowledge and situational characteristics (Szulanski, 1995) which lead to stickiness and inhibit innovation of the organisation. This paper will consider the need for appropriate space as a learning resource in order to enable knowledge creation. Initially the relationships between space, learning and knowledge will be discussed, developing a theoretical perspective that outlines the role of space and the types required fro effective organisational learning; the role of space in enabling knowledge ‘stickiness’ will be discussed in terms of how it can theoretically overcome transfer barriers. Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management and the need for Space Argyris and Schon (1996) state that learning is organisational when the learning that results from organisational inquiry has become embedded into either the mental models and images of the organisation held in its members’ minds, or into the epistemological symbols, processes, procedures and physical manifestations of culture embedded in the organisational environment. How this embedding occurs is seen to differ greatly throughout the literature. Easterby-Smith, undertaking an overview of the organisational learning literature in 1997, identified six discrete disciplines each with its own definitions and features: ‘psychology and O[rganisational] D[evelopment]’, ‘management science’, ‘sociology and organisational theory’, ‘strategy’, ‘production management’ and ‘cultural anthropology’. A study of these disciplines indicates that the outputs of organisational learning will be dependent, at least in part, upon how the organisation is viewed by its members (Easterby-Smith et al., 1998). If the organisation is considered by its members as a system, then it follows that the focus of inquiry into organisational learning will be around channels and flows of information, the way that feedback processes operate in order to enhance the system and the transfer of individual learning to the organisation (indicating the ‘management science’, ‘strategy’, and ‘psychology and OD’ disciplines). On the other hand, if the organisation is regarded as something that is