Hello i have 2 assignments 1st assignment max 2 pages 2nd assignment APA-compliant “taxonomy table” Please se

Hello i have 2 assignments

1st assignment max 2 pages

2nd assignment APA-compliant “taxonomy table”

Please see requirements in word document


Week 1
Assignment 1a
needs to be max 2 pages and 3 citations from week 1 resources
To prepare for this Discussion, review this week’s readings and consider the
critical aspects of project portfolio management and what steps you would take to
address an organization’s capability to align a portfolio of projects to its strategic
objectives. How is managing a portfolio of projects different from managing individual
projects? What additional competencies will a portfolio manager need? For this
Discussion, you will need to identify an organization about which you have
knowledge of its project management processes and strategies. You will not need to
name the organization or discuss any proprietary or confidential information; it will be
sufficient to indicate the organization’s industry or vertical market.



Post an assessment of the leadership competencies required for a project portfolio
manager to assist organizational leaders in selecting and managing a strategic
portfolio of projects. In your assessment, address the following questions:
What are the two fundamental competencies required for a portfolio manager to
assist senior leaders in aligning the organization’s portfolio of projects to its strategic
objectives? Discuss the relevant strategic management concepts and theories when
supporting your selection of competencies, being sure to include correct APA
citations and references.
Thinking about an organization with which you are familiar, how did that organization
manage its strategic portfolio of projects? How were projects selected for the
portfolio? What were the project management processes and methodologies used in
the organization? How did the organization’s strategic objectives influence the
selection and management of the portfolio of projects?
Based on your readings this week and the experiences you described above, what
recommendations would you make for an organization to ensure that its portfolio of
projects is directly aligned to its strategic objectives?
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific citations from this
week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 1 Discussion Rubric for specific grading elements and criteria.
Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your work.
Assignment 1b
For each theory, model, or process presented, be sure to include a minimum of
two references to peer-reviewed, scholarly journals, as well as appropriate in-text citations.
APA-compliant “taxonomy table
Research the theorists who developed and extended these project portfolio theories,
models, and processes and compile key information as part of your review.
submit an evaluation of at least three project portfolio management theories, models, or
processes in the form of a properly formatted, APA-compliant “taxonomy table”. For each of
the theories, models, or processes you select, you should include the following:




The name of the theory, model, or process
The date the theory, model, or process was introduced
The theorist or author
Key components of the theory, model, or price
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 311 – 324
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Developing a systemic lessons learned knowledge model for
organisational learning through projects
Stephen Duffield ⁎, S. Jonathan Whitty 1
University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Campus, Queensland 4300, Australia
Received 22 January 2014; received in revised form 3 July 2014; accepted 17 July 2014
Available online 6 August 2014
Abstract
A significant challenge for government and business project organisations is to ensure that lessons are learned and that mistakes of the past are
not repeated. Both knowledge and project management literature suggests that in practice lessons learned processes rarely happen, and when it
does it is concerned with lessons identification rather than organisational learning. There are limited practical models for general management to
use to conceptualise what organisational learning is and therefore how to enable it. However, aspects of health care, nuclear power, rail, and
aviation organisations have successfully implemented organisational learning by way of the Swiss cheese model for safety and systemic failures.
This paper proposes an adaptation of the Swiss cheese model to enable project organisations to conceptualise how they learn from past project
experiences and distribute successful project know-how across an organisational network of elements such as individual learning, culture, social,
technology, process and infrastructure.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project management; Knowledge management; Lessons learned; Organisational learning; Swiss cheese model
1. Introduction
There is a government and business need to successfully
manage programmes and projects, to learn from success and
failure, and to capture, disseminate and apply lessons learned
(Li, 2002; NASA, 2012; National Audit Office, 2009; New
Zealand Government, 2010). The Project Management Institute’s
(PMI) Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®
Guide) identifies the importance of collecting and documenting
lessons learned and implementing process improvements (Project
Management Institute, 2008a). However, in practice organisational
learning from projects rarely happens, and when it does it fails
to deliver the intended results (Atkinson et al., 2006; Keegan and
Turner, 2001; Kerzner, 2009; Klakegg et al., 2010; Milton, 2010;
Schindler and Eppler, 2003; Williams, 2008; Wysocki, 2004,
⁎ Corresponding author. at: Tel.: +61 421 052 135.
E-mail addresses: stephen@invictaprojects.com.au (S. Duffield),
whitty@usq.edu.au (S.J. Whitty).
1
Tel.:+61 7 3470 4548.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.004
0263-7863/00/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
2009). Nevertheless, some organisations in the sectors of health
care, nuclear power, rail and aviation have demonstrated their
ability to apply lessons learned by way of Reason’s (1997, 2000)
Swiss cheese model. This model enables these organisations to
conceptualise how safety and accident prevention know-how is
distributed across a network of interconnected organisational
faculties and systems.
In this paper we develop a conceptual model, hereafter referred
to as the systemic lessons learned knowledge model or Syllk
(pronounced Silk) model, which is a variation or adaptation of
Reason’s (1997, 2000) Swiss cheese model. Whereas the Swiss
cheese model appropriately fits accident causation, the Syllk
model is better suited to the organisation managing projects. We
present the case that both Swiss cheese and Syllk models capture
the essence of how naturally evolving complex adaptive systems
incrementally modify their behaviour over time to optimally fit
their environment. Put simply; in aviation the Swiss cheese model
enables lessons learned data to be collected from each plane flight
today, so that the aviation industry can improve how planes fly
tomorrow. For project organisations, we envisage that the Syllk
312
S. Duffield, S.J. Whitty / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 311–324
model will enable lessons learned data to be collected from each
project so that the organisation is able to improve its future project
delivery performance.
The paper begins with a problem statement about the
organisational lessons learned paradox, namely; why, when there
are so many opinions, guides, and models on organisational
lessons learned processes, do organisations generally still fail to
learn from their past project experiences? In this section we
highlight that the problem is not with identifying lesson, nor is it
to a lesser extent with the ability to store or share knowledge
by technological means. But rather the problem appears to be
that organisations are unable to apply or implement the lesson
learned (knowledge) they have. They lack, metaphorically
speaking, an organisational central nervous system and a way
of conceptualising it so that it is actionable. More practically,
this means organisations require an active and manageable
systemic approach to lessons learned where learning through past
experiences pervades all organisational processes, systems, and
practices. With this point in mind the literature review explores
organisational learning and lessons learned techniques, how
naturally evolved complex adaptive systems learn and adapt,
and how both these topics relate to the project organisation. We
then review the literature on successful learning organisations
and show how their learning mechanism is underpinned by James
Reason’s (1997, 2000) Swiss cheese model for safety and
accident prevention. Our line of enquiry is formed from a gap in
the literature which results in our research question; how can the
lessons learned concepts illustrated in Reason’s Swiss cheese
model be broadened beyond safety to meet the learning needs
of project organisations? To address this question based on the
groundwork of the literature review, we describe the development of the Syllk model for organisational learning through
projects and present the findings of a small conceptual test of the
model with practitioner focus groups. Finally we discuss the
findings within the framework of the literature and speculate on
practical applications and future research opportunities.
2. The problem statement
In this section we discuss the general trend of project
organisations failing to learn from their past experiences whilst
at the same time being surrounded by lessons learned models
and guides and opinions on how to apply them. We highlight
how cultural and social factors can be both a problem and
solution to organisational learning, and discuss the need for a
new paradigm for organisational learning that conceptualises
and articulates how organisational know-how about successful
project delivery is in practice distributed across networked or
interconnected areas of the organisation.
2.1. There is a general trend in failing to learn from projects
There is significant dissatisfaction with project lessons learned
processes as they are. Lessons from projects might be identified
but not many are learned when it comes to picking up on early
warning signs in problem projects (Klakegg et al., 2010). Out of
74 organisations that attempted lessons learned processes, 60%
were dissatisfied (Milton, 2010). In another study, 62% of 522
project practitioner responded that they had a process for learning
lessons and of those only 11.7% followed the process (Williams,
2007). Furthermore, whilst the lessons learned process is popular,
it fails to deliver the intended results as lessons are identified and
are often not followed through and integrated into the organisation (O’Dell and Hubert, 2011).
Even institutions such as NASA have issues with lessons
learned from projects. Following reviews in 2000 of NASA’s
Mars Program, the Space Shuttle wiring problems, and the
implementation of NASA’s Faster, Better, Cheaper (FBC) project,
NASA implemented action plans to improve sharing of experiences and lessons learned (Keegan and Griner, 2000; NASA,
2012). In 2002 the Government Accountability Office found that
NASA’s lessons learned were not routinely identified, reviewed
and accessed by project managers (Li, 2002). A recent 2012 NASA
Office of Inspector General audit report highlights that NASA
project managers are still not routinely using the lessons learned
information system (LLIS) to contribute new information or to
search for lessons learned identified by others (NASA, 2012).
Other renowned institutions have similar lesson learned issues.
A review of the BP Deepwater Horizon accident investigation
revealed how lessons learned of previous “well control event
incidents” and “lines of communication” were not acknowledge or
addressed and was a contributing cause to the failure (BP, 2010;
Cleveland, 2011). NASA today uses the BP Deepwater Horizon
incident as a lessons learned case study paying particular attention
to communication deficiencies around government oversight,
disregard of data, testing, changes to process, safety culture and
lessons learned from previous incidents (NASA, 2011).
There are also few signs that lessons are being learnt through
public sector projects. For example the Australian State Victorian
Government Ombudsman examined 10 major ICT business
transformation projects during 2011 and identified that despite
the extensive guidance, reports and literature available, agencies
are still making the same mistakes around planning, governance,
project management and procurement (Brouwer, 2011). The
Queensland Health Payroll System Commission of Inquiry
highlighted that problems from the Queensland Health payroll
project (the worst failure of public administration in Australia)
“were known to be ones not uncommon in large government
projects of this kind. The neglect of them in this case is cause to
think it is likely the lessons will again be ignored” (Chesterman,
2013, p. 219).
2.2. Not for the want of opinions, guides, and models on lessons
learned
Generally speaking, there are many opinions and guides,
but little practical advice regarding workable processes that
effectively enable the organisation to learn from past project
experiences. Over the last 14 years the PMBOK® Guide has
increased its references to the term lessons learned. In the
PMBOK® Guide 4th edition there is a focus on process
improvement as a result of lessons learned (Project Management
Institute, 2008a). However, in the PMBOK® Guide 4th and 5th
editions (2008b, 2013) the ‘lessons learned’ process is not
S. Duffield, S.J. Whitty / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 311–324
discussed anywhere except for a glossary description and both
versions refer to a different description on what is a lesson
learned. PMBOK® Guide 5th edition (2013) has an additional
twenty two references (mainly due to a new knowledge area —
Stakeholder Management) and still remains focussed on project
closure lesson learned activities. The PMBOK® Guide 5th
edition also aligns with the Knowledge Management (KM) Data,
Information, Knowledge and Wisdom (DIKW) model. However,
the DIKW model which is based on the work of Ackoff (1989)
has been challenged by the KM community as “unsound and
methodologically undesirable” (Frické, 2009; Rowley, 2007;
Vala-Webb, 2012).
Organisations are also not to be found wanting for lessons
learned models and methods. The Project Management Institute’s
OPM3 Organizational Project Management Maturity Model
(Project Management Institute, 2008b) references lessons
learned. However, there is less guidance than that provided in
the PMBOK® Guide. The APM Body of Knowledge 6th Edition
(Association for Project Management, 2012) refers to knowledge
management as the governance process rather than identification
of the specific process around lessons learned and highlights the
importance of people skills (communities of practice, learning
and development) and delivery of information management. The
Office of Government Commerce PRINCE2 (OGC, 2009, p. 12)
project methodology encourages project teams to “…learn from
previous experience: lessons are sought, recorded and acted upon
throughout the life of the project”. PRINCE2 has a single process
(a lessons learned log) for recording lessons learned and reporting
on them (lessons learned report). The last to consider would be
the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) model which
provides for best practice organisational process improvement
(Chrissis et al., 2003), where process improvement proposals and
process lessons learned are said to be key work products and
sub-processes. Midha (2005) has discussed the benefits of CMMI
and identifies the classic approach of collecting and translating
key lessons into processes, whereas Von Zedtwitz (2002) has
developed a capability model for post-project reviews based
on the standard five-stage capability model. But whilst there are
many models and methods to choose from, much of the literature
re-enforces the point that people factors influence the success of
the lessons learned process and that a learning organisation
culture is critical to successful dissemination of lessons learned
(Andriessen and Fahlbruch, 2004; Fernie et al., 2003; Leistner,
2010; Sense, 2007).
2.3. People factors — both a problem and solution to lessons
learned
There are no doubt major challenges to get employees to
participate, access, and reuse the captured knowledge (Milton,
2005; O’Dell and Hubert, 2011; O’Dell et al., 1998). Duhon
and Elias (2008) report that failure of learning valuable lessons
from projects can be connected to the learning, cultural and
social people factors. Learning in organisations is very much a
social, not a solitary, phenomenon (Simon, 1991, p. 125). What
an individual learns in an organisation is very much dependent
on what is already known to (or believed by) other members
313
of the organisation and what kinds of information are present in
the organisational environment. It is also affected by social and
intellectual credibility (Blackman and Henderson, 2001). However, what causes a problem is that project managers are “…
people-oriented, free-thinkers, passionate, autocratic, conservative and pragmatic” and in most cases these behaviours can
hinder organisational cross-project sharing of lessons learned as
(Pemsel and Wiewiora, 2013, p. 38).
Furthermore, from the collective point of view, project teams
often know they are in trouble. However, they take no or minimal
effort to resolve errors as owning up to failure may cause shame
(Von Zedtwitz, 2002). A protective post lessons learned attitude
weakens the process and hides the real problems of the project
(Duhon and Elias, 2008). When a problem is recognised they
are biased to learning the least-threatening lessons. Duhon and
Elias (2008) argue that all in an industry sector should be learning
from the mistakes of others, and that we typically view others as
substandard to us and don’t believe we can learn from them.
Therefore it is often hard to get correct and relevant information
on what went wrong.
However, social and cultural factors also provide solutions
to organisational learning. Of the number of methods used to
disseminate lessons learned, two are of particular interest, namely;
process methods and social based methods. Process based
methodologies are those lessons learned where the knowledge is
reflected in an organisation’s policies, processes and procedures
(Garon, 2006; Keegan and Turner, 2001; Midha, 2005; O’Dell
and Grayson, 1997; Schindler and Eppler, 2003; Williams, 2007).
And social based methodologies are those lessons learned that are
not easy to break up and transfer knowledge from one person to
another (Bresnen et al., 2003; Fernie et al., 2003). As Fernie et al.
(2003) point out, knowledge sharing is best performed through
the communication of individuals, and two clearly identifiable
social-based processes that appear successful are networking and
mentoring (Bresnen et al., 2003; Huang and Newell, 2003). The
new Syllk model presented in this paper is an attempt to integrate
the features of both the process and social based methodologies.
2.4. Project organisations require a new paradigm for
organisational learning through projects
The dissemination and application of lessons learned through
projects are critical to organisational programmes and projects
achieving success (Disterer, 2002). Lindner and Wald (2011)
point out a gap in project management practice and suggest that
there is a need for more research in understanding the role
Knowledge Management (KM) plays in project management
methodologies. Neef (2005) identifies an integrated knowledge
and risk management approach where organisations need to
capture knowledge as in lessons learned and then apply the
knowledge learned using risk management and decision support
system techniques to avoid the mistakes of the past and improve
the performance of projects and the organisation. Williams (2008,
p. 262) also argues that there is a need for “…wider research into
how lessons [from projects] can be disseminated throughout
an organisation and incorporated into organisational practice”.
And as Wideman (2011, p. 1 emphasis added) puts it, “…in spite
314
S. Duffield, S.J. Whitty / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 311–324
of all the technology that is available to us today, we have not
yet found a presentation format that captures the essence of this
wisdom in a way that is relevant to future usage, readily searchable
and easy to store. …we have a serious cultural problem. …we
are probably condemned to continue to throw away the valuable
resources.”
3. Literature review
The body of literature concerned with the problem as stated
above is broad as it embraces organisational knowledge, the
lessons learned mechanisms by which organisations can gain
knowledge from past experiences, and how some organisations
successfully adapt to their changing environment by inculcating
learning through a conceptual model. Moreover, this literature is
discussed in light of the fact that the organisation is a complex
adaptive system and learning is achieved by distributing knowhow across its various interconnected or networked functions.
We briefly review each of these areas with enough depth to
show the limitations the literature currently has in practically
addressing the problem.
3.1. Organisational knowledge and lessons learned
Today, in the context of the organisation, knowledge
exploration is attributed; to Drucker (1993) where knowledge
is a management resource and power; to Wiig (1997) where
knowledge is a form of belief; to Polanyi (1958; 2009) who
explores the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge;
and to Davenport and Prusak (2000, p. 5) where knowledge
in organisations “becomes embedded not only in documents
or repositories but also in organisational routines, processes,
practices, and norms”.
Polanyi’s (1958) work formed the foundation for KM theory
authors Nonaka and Takeuchi (2007; 1995) who state that
whereas explicit or codified knowledge is objective, easily
communicated and transferred without in depth experience;
tacit knowledge is subjective, environment-specific, personal,
and is difficult to communicate. Polanyi and Sen (2009, p. 4)
contend that “…we can know more than we can tell” and
that humans create knowledge by involving themselves with
objects through a process. Tacit knowledge therefore consists
of cognitive and technical elements (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995). The cognitive elements are “mental models” (schemata,
paradigms, perspectives, cultural beliefs and viewpoints) where
humans create working models of the world in their minds and
act upon them. The technical elements are the existing know
how and skills (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Organisational knowledge therefore extends beyond the individual human component. It is not found in one place. It is emergent behaviour that is
distributed across interconnected organisational cultural artefacts, rituals, and practices (Walsh and Ungson, 1991).
Organisational knowledge plays a key role in the development of both enterprise and project risk management controls
and treatments by first searching and learning what others have
done (what has worked and what has failed) so the wheel is
not reinvented (Li, 2002; Liebowitz and Megbolugbe, 2003).
According to Neef (2005) a company cannot manage its risks
without managing its knowledge. Projects fail due to a lack of
lessons learned among the project team or lack of knowledge
sharing. KM tools and techniques can be used to communicate
risks among members of a project team. It is important that
the organisation manages knowledge risk management which
would require the identification, dissemination and application
of knowledge related to potential enterprise and project risks to
contribute to risk management prediction and response analysis
(Alhawari et al., 2012; Neef, 2005).
Duhon and Elias (2008) argue that an organisation knows
something if just one person knows it and that the organisation
culture and structure enables that knowledge event to be used
effectively. They reference actions such as; individual learning;
knowledge storage (checklists and work processes); organisational
changes that re-focus knowledge; culture changes to open and act
on problems; and relationship building that enables skills and
knowledge to deal with organisational problems. They also state
that people learn by processing information using the human
central nervous system. However, an organisation does not have a
central nervous system, so it needs to create analogous structures
to enable its personnel to learn as one holistic group.
Culture per se plays a significant part in KM, organisational
learning, and in the effectiveness of learning mechanisms
(Andriessen and Fahlbruch, 2004; Duhon and Elias, 2008;
Eskerod and Skriver, 2007; Leistner, 2010). As Dvir and
Shenhar (2011, p. 20) point out, “great projects create a revolutionary project culture. The execution of great projects often
requires a different project culture, which can spread to an
entire organisation.” Williams (2007, 2008), Hislop (2005) and
Maqsood (2006) all suggest that it is critical to understand the
culture of an organisation before implementing or using lessons
learned processes. Furthermore, surveys consistently reveal that
the main obstacles to project success are organisational people
(social and culture) factors (Milton, 2010; O’Dell and Hubert,
2011; Williams, 2007). In summary, organisational knowledge
or know-how of how to respond to the business environment
are behaviours and actions that are embedded in and distributed
across organisational artefacts, system and processes, and cultural
practices and rituals. They are networked elements that together
generate a particular organisational response.
The established literature on lessons learned processes provides
many variations on essentially three process steps; identification
(capture), dissemination (transferring) and application (implementation). However, it is the application that appears to be the most
difficult to operationalise (Duhon and Elias, 2008; Keegan and
Turner, 2001; Williams, 2007).
On identification: Common lessons identification and capture
techniques are: reflection, lessons learned sessions; after action
reviews; project debriefings; close out meetings; post project
appraisals/reviews; case study exercises; community of practices;
project milestone reviews; post mortems, project histories;
project health checks; and project audits (Anbari et al., 2008;
Bakker et al., 2011; Maqsood et al., 2004; Schindler and Eppler,
2003; Williams, 2007). O’Dell and Hubert (2011, p. 69) point
out that there are some typical questions that are focused on:
“what was supposed to happen?, what actually happened?, why
S. Duffield, S.J. Whitty / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 311–324
was there a difference or variation? and who else needs to know
this information?”. It is the identification practices and tools that
are often mistaken as complete lessons learned processes.
On dissemination: Disseminating and transfer often refer to
codification, verification, storing, searching, retrieving, knowledge sharing and training (Boh, 2007; Firestone and McElroy,
2003; O’Dell and Hubert, 2011; O’Dell et al., 1998; Schindler
and Eppler, 2003; Williams, 2007).
On application: Broadly speaking, knowledge application
often requires a significant effort, commitment, and understanding of people behaviour for both the organisation and
individuals as this is the area where the lesson learned application
process typically breaks down and fails (Duhon and Elias, 2008;
Keegan and Turner, 2001; Williams, 2007). Maqsood (2006),
and Duhon and Elias (2008) highlight the need to understand
cognitive psychology when examining the effectiveness of
tacit knowledge in the learning process. Another challenge to
organisational learning is that every person has a distinctive
learning technique and that learning depends on an individual’s
capability to effectively acquire and use in a timely manner
(Maqsood, 2006). Application is seen as the final piece of the
lesson learned puzzle. The “…implementation of any [lessons
learned] system should be driven by a strategic business need
(i.e. learning) that adopts a holistic perspective which considers
the implications to the project processes, tools, and people”
(Carrillo et al., 2013). Application has also been conceptualised
in the form of a project learning roadmap, consisting of three
main components, namely: key elements (various processes that
bring about change in lesson learned practices); actions (required
actions both corporate and project team participate in); and an
implementation guide (a form of checklist to assure aforementioned processes and actions are completed) (Carrillo et al., 2013).
The literature provides numerous technology solutions of
storing, recording and accessing lessons learned. The key is to
identify what works for an organisation and constantly monitor,
update, and keep it current and relevant (Williams, 2007, 2008).
Information Technology (IT) is a critical element to knowledge
dissemination. Quite often technology is blamed for failure in
knowledge dissemination (Williams, 2007). Maqsood (2006)
and Newell et al. (2008) suggest that IT systems can be a key
enabler to learning and supporting information sharing. Newell
(2004) discusses the ineffectiveness of relying on IT to capture
and share learnings and highlights how people prefer to use
social networks (Bresnen et al., 2003). Williams (2007) reports
that there is an over-reliance on IT systems and that IT is only
part of the KM process. Often organisations implement an IT
system solution without considering the organisation learning
needs and implementations that focus on technology typically
fail (Barnes, 2011).
In the relationships between process, people and technology,
technology is only 10% of the knowledge management solution
with the remaining 90% related to human capital (Maqsood
and Finegan, 2009). There is a move away from KM being IT or
process or people focussed to a more aligned and balance people,
process and technology approach (O’Dell and Hubert, 2011). It is
also recognised that the use of IT social media is having a positive
influence on current knowledge management practices (O’Dell
315
and Hubert, 2011), and that the introduction of social software
and online social networking has re-opened the debate over the
relationship between technology and knowledge management
(Orlikowski, 2007). Moreover, the incursion of digital immersion (internet and digital technology) coupled with the impact
of mobile devices and video is having a positive impact on
knowledge management (O’Dell and Hubert, 2011). Barnes
(2011) has identified the following technologies that can support
and enable knowledge management activities: business intelligence, client relationship management system, contact centre
software, incident management software, learning management
system, expertise location system, records management technology, component content management systems, enterprise content
management system, document capture system, search technology, portal technologies, workflow technologies, e-discovery
technology, blog software, micro-blogging software, social
networking software, instant messaging technology and collaboration technologies. In addition to technology another support
system for organisational learning is infrastructure, where having
the right facilities, equipment and materials in place supports
effective lessons learned practices (Thomas, 2012).
3.2. How complex adaptive systems learn (embed know-how)
It is at this point that we must acknowledge that an organisation
is a complex adaptive system (Stacey, 2007). A complex adaptive
system is a system that learns. It is a special case of a complex
system where its behaviour is shaped by past experiences. It is
a system that embeds and distributes knowledge about its past
environments across its various faculties. Whereas complex
systems such as the weather do not adapt in any way to their
environment, complex adaptive systems like human civilisation,
stock markets, social insect and ant colonies, the human body and
human brain (Bak, 1997; Bar-Yam, 2003), and the organisation
(Holland, 1996; Keshavarz et al., 2010; Stacey, 1996) do adapt to
their changing environment. When it is said that a