A Tale of Two Genres?: Knowledge Management in Organizations Mani Subramani (msubramani@csom.umn.edu) and Gordon Davis (gdavis@csom.umn.edu) Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota Abstract This paper suggests that organizational learning phenomena belong to fundamentally two different types: the relatively deterministic industrial genre and the idiosyncratic behavioral genre. These genres differ substantially from each other on key dimensions such as the nature of embedding of learning, cumulativeness of learning, learning orientation and criteria used to evaluate outcomes. Researchers investigating organizational learning phenomena need to be sensitive to these differences to be able to effectively distinguish patterns that would otherwise be masked by variations attributable to the genres. Introduction Our understanding of the patterns of organizational learning and knowledge creation in organizations (Cohen and Leventhal 1990, Huber 1992) is drawn from a variety of sources. This includes studies from contexts such as manufacturing operations (Argote, Beckman and Epple 1990, Henderson and Clark 1990), management consulting (Starbuck 1992), service operations (Pentland 1992, Seely Brown and Duguid 1991), new product development (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) and military exercises (Starbuck 1996, Henderson, Baird and Watts 1996). While the broad scope of studies informing conceptual analyses of organizational learning potentially provides fertile grounds for theory formulation, it also increases the likelihood that basic variations in the underlying phenomenon are masked in attempts to arrive at generalizations across multiple contexts. We suggest that the researchers have failed to recognize two fundamentally different genres of organizational learning in organizations: the relatively deterministic industrial genre and the idiosyncratic behavioral genre. The characteristics of learning phenomena in these two contexts are quite distinct and the recognition of the differences is necessary to allow cumulative theory building in the discipline. We suggest that the differences between the two genres hinge, among others, on factors such as the locus of embedding, cumulativeness, learning orientation and outcome evaluation criteria. We illustrate each of these factors by drawing on detailed descriptions of organizational learning in the manufacturing industry from prior research and point to the patterns of variation in the two genres that yet remain unrecognized in the literature. We believe that the homogeneous conception of organizational learning is particularly problematic for information systems research as clarity related to the nuances of behavioral processes is often central to successful application of information technologies (Sabherwal and Robey 1993). Consider two instances of organizational learning described in the literature, both set in the manufacturing industry 1. The first relates to learning of steel production at Chaparral Steel (Leonard Barton 1992, 1994) and the second to learning during process re-design and installation of information systems in ManCo, a manufacturing company (Sarker and Lee 1998). In describing the development of new steel manufacturing techniques at Chaparral, Leonard Barton (1994, 1995 check) describes the learning processes involved as: “One way to push equipment performance and ensure learning is to set goals for each project considerably beyond current production capabilities. Chaparral managers set a very ambitious goal for the near net-shape project: to produce large (six teen and twenty-four inch wide) structural steel beams at the same per-pound cost as the simple round reinforcing bars, the company’s first product… Reaching this cost objective (half of Big Steel’s) required drastically reducing the energy costs (roughly 25 percent of tatal) of rolling the steel into the required end shape.” ( L eonard Barton 1994, page 25). Contrast this with the business process redesign effort described by Sarker and Lee (1998)2: “It was a series of meetings. W e met..week ly and you just began to interact..and Judith (the MIS Manager) controlled how the meetings were to go..and that helped you define everything… and when companies (the IT vendors) came in to give their presentation, that is when you started getting into the nuts and bolts of it… .So it is a process… it is something you just don’t go in and (say)… OK, I am going to want this, this, this… you had to think about what was needed [regarding the business process], and you brainstormed, then… you talk ed about what is definitely needed. Y ou went back to your bosses… ask them what they were look ing for… you would brainstorm with that and then go back to the meetings.” (page 244). There are several similarities between the processes in the two cases: each of them is an account of learning that results in artifacts enhancing the capabilities of the firm. Further, both of them relate to major changes that reshape routine operations in the two firms. In the first case, the artifact produced through organizational learning efforts was an advanced manufacturing process involving patented molds and an innovative steel fabrication method. The artifact in the second case was a sophisticated information systems infrastructure that