Building a learning organization the case of logigear vietnam

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ TP HỒ CHÍ MINH - oo0oo - VƯƠNG BẢO LONG BUILDING A LEARNING ORGANIZATION – THE CASE OF LOGIGEAR VIETNAM LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ KINH TẾ TP HỒ CHÍ MINH – NĂM 2017 BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ TP HỒ CHÍ MINH - oo0oo - VƯƠNG BẢO LONG BUILDING A LEARNING ORGANIZATION - THE CASE OF LOGIGEAR VIETNAM Chuyên ngành: Quản trị kinh doanh (eMBA) Mã số: 60 34 01 02 LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ KINH TẾ Người hướng dẫn khoa học: TS Lý Thị Minh Châu TP HỒ CHÍ MINH – NĂM 2017 STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICATION I hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original The ideas and quotes taken from external sources are duly acknowledged in the text The material, either in full or in part, has not been previously submitted to any other institution Ho Chi Minh City, March 31, 2017 (signed) Vuong Bao Long Table of Contents Secondary Cover Page Statement of Authentication Table of Content Table of Figures List of Tables Abstract Chapter I - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale 1.2 Problem Statement 1.3 Research Questions 10 1.4 Research Objectives 10 1.5 About LogiGear 11 Chapter II - LITERATURE REVIEW 14 2.1 What is “Learning”? 14 2.2 What is a “Learning Organization”? 17 2.3 Knowledge and Knowledge Management 23 2.4 Innovation and Innovation Competence 25 Chapter III - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 30 3.1 Data Collection 32 3.2 Participants in Interviews - Key Stakeholder Groups 32 3.3 Data Analysis 38 3.4 Research Model 41 Chapter IV - FINDINGS & DISCUSSIONS 42 4.1 Personal Mastery 43 4.2 Mental Models 46 4.3 Shared Vision 47 4.4 Team Learning 49 4.5 Systems Thinking 52 4.6 Technology 56 4.7 Summary of Findings & Discussions 60 4.8 Framework Suggestion 63 Chapter V - CONCLUDING REMARKS 74 References Appendices Table of Figures Figure 1.1- Scope of Research Figure21.2- Transforming to a Learning Organization 10 Figure31.3- TestArchitect, the automation test tool of LogiGear 12 Figure42.1- Single-Loop Learning and Double-Loop Learning 15 Figure52.2- Triple-loop learning by Asian Development Bank 15 Figure62.3- Kolb's Experiential Learning Style 16 Figure72.4- Three-leg Model for Learning Organization 19 Figure82.5- Overall model of a learning organization 20 Figure92.6- A Framework for Understanding Tacit Knowing 24 Figure103.1- Description of data collection and data analysis 40 Figure103.2- Research Model: Elements That Construct Learning Organization 41 Figure114.1- Sarder’s Principle: Two Percent of Revenue to Learning and Development 55 Figure124.2- Framework for Building “Learning Organization” for LogiGear VN 64 Figure134.3- Org Chart of the "Learning Organization" Task Force 72 Figure144.4- The Action Plan to Build A “Learning Organization” 73 List of Tables Table11.1- Diagnosis Report of LogiGear’s Learning Culture Table21.2- Ranges of Services by LogiGear VN 12 Table33.1- Five Disciplines by Peter Senge 31 Table43.2- Data Collection - Interview Coding & Demographics 35 Table53.3- Data Collection - Focus Group Coding & Demographics 37 Table64.1- Factors that construct Learning Organization in LogiGear 61 Table74.2- Qualtrics for Learning Organization 71 BUILDING A LEARNING ORGANIZATION – THE CASE OF LOGIGEAR VIETNAM Abstract This research is to find the factors that contruct a “learning organization” for LogiGear Vietnam, an information technology company In the backdrop of the Five-Discipline Model of “Learning Organization” by Perter Senge, the author employed a qualitative method to collect and analyze data from in-depth interviews and focus group with all three levels of staff in the company, being software engineers, middle layer managers, and top executives The result revealed that Senge’s five disciplines (Personal Mastery, Mental Minsets, Shared Vision, Team Learning, Systems Thinking) exist in LogiGear VN together with the 6th discipline, “Technology”, found as an emergent finding The research is specific, designed and carried out in order to explore and suggest a model to build a “Learning Organization”, the case of LogiGear Vietnam Keywords: learning, knowledge, learning organization, innovation, information technology, LogiGear Vietnam “The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.” - Arie P De Geus Head of Planning for the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies Chapter I - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale LogiGear VN is an information technology company, specialized in software testing and software development Doing business in a fast changing, fast developing industry where technological change takes place almost every minute, it has no other way than to become most adaptive to change and most innovative in providing solutions and services to customers in order to succeed Learning from success stories from tech giants Apple, Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc the board of management of LogiGear VN found out that innovation is the key And, innovation should not be expected from a single genius, happening over night, or appreaing in an “aha!” moment, but it’s “a result from hard and focused work” (Drucker, 2015) Nowadays, “innovation discipline is still in its infancy, but competencies that increase chances of innovation can now be learned.” (Bezerra, 2005) The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) - of which the emerging technology breakthroughs in fields such as AI, IoT, robotics, 3D printing, and nano technology prevail - urges companies to learn faster, produce faster and deliver faster using new technologies that are merging the physical, digital and biological worlds (Schwab, 2016) LogiGear VN is not an exception and cannot be staying out of the circle of influence, when it is an IT/software company with goal to be leading in its industry, software testing and development In order to pursue the vision and achieve its strategic goal to become a transformational organization, LogiGear VN needs to be innovative first hand and deep down it must become a “learning organization” In a seminar on innovation leadership in Ho Chi Minh City in 2013, Prof Tony Wagner of Harvard Business School articulated that if labor was a commodity in the industrial age and knowledge was a valuable asset, it is now innovation that creates quantum added value that ensures competitive advantage for sustainable growth and development He said, the imperative was true not only at corporate level like the cases of IBM, Intel, Apple, Google, etc., but also at state level such as Israel, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, USA, Japan, etc Not long ago, World Bank and Ministry of Planning & Investment of Vietnam have stressed that “boosting the learning and innovation in order to maintain a high and sustainable growth needs a radical reform program.” (WB & MPI, 2016) For a country to thrive, enhancing productivity using innovation competence is the ultimate solution (Porter, 1990) For firms, innovation competence increases their competitive advantage (Tidd & Bessant, 2015) Nguyen Van Dung and colleagues (2016) emphasize the importance of innovation in a knowledge economy They examine the role of different components of knowledge economy in economic growth and other factors such as innovation, education, etc that simultaneously affect economic growth of 37 countries in Asia during 1990 – 2014 The research confirms that “there exists a positive association between economic growth and four components of the knowledge economy framework”, which are innovation, education, ICT infrastructure, and natural resources intensity Nadeshwar and Jayasimha (2010, p 182) wrote “while all people have the capacity to learn, the structures in which they have to function are often not conducive to reflection and engagement Furthermore, people may lack the tools and guiding ideas to make sense of the situations they face” As to Senge, for a learning organization, ‘adaptive learning’ must be joined by ‘generative learning’ and double-loop learning that enhances our capacity to create.” (Senge, 1990, p 13-14) Indeed, to compete and win in the context of increasing globalization, integration, and rapidly evolving technologies, individuals and organizations have no way other than building their ability to learn – the cornerstone for continuous improvement, operational excellence, and innovation Hess agreed that “companies that learn fastest and adapt well to changing environments perform the best over time.” (Hess, 2014) Bersin (2012) quoted in his article “5 Keys to Building a Learning Organization” that the worldwide corporate training industry valued at 135 billion US dollars, but “companies now realize that they simply cannot find the skills they need in the workforce and have to reinvest heavily in corporate training… Should companies go back to the 1980s and build a corporate university again? The answer is no Today the world of corporate training has been revolutionized.” (Bersin, 2012) He suggested keys to build a learning organization, which are: (1) corporate learning is "informal" and HR doesn't own it, (2) Promote and reward expertise, (3) Unleash the power of experts, (4) Demonstrate the value of formal training, and (5) Allow people to make mistakes He believed “The best organizational learning (and individual learning) occurs right after you make a huge mistake.” And most interestingly was his recent assertion on Forbes.com March 09, 2017 of AI1 and cognitive computing that change the way corporate people learn: “Thirty-eight percent of companies in our new research (10,400 respondents from 140 countries) believe that robotics and automation will be "fully implemented" in their company within five years” (Bersin, 2017) Although there would be a long way for robotics to fully replace men in learning, the possibility it comes true is not petite Innovative organization should start from being a learning organization This means a simultaneous visionary transformation and involves all levels of resources (individual, team, and organization itself) along the process of the organization’s development (Senge, 1990) AI – Artificial Intelligence 72 C- Building “Learning Organization” Task Force Set up a task force to lead and implement the strategy for building the “learning organization”, including: - - - - Program Sponsor: the CEO who sponsors for the program in terms of top leadership commitment, finance funding, strategy directing, conflict moderator, etc Program Manager: organizes, executes, and takes full responsibility for program HR Manager: In charge of “Learning Culture”, makes sure of putting in the right leaders, right people, right behaviors, and right resources for the success of the program Capability Development Manager: In charge of “Learning Plan”, setting up learning goals, competency model, learning method, and learning assessment Training Manager: In charge of “Learning Operation”, including learning content, delivery, technology utilization, administration and marketing Shared Vision Mental Model Systems Thinking Shared Vision Mental Model Personal Mastery Systems Thinking Shared Vision Systems Thinking Team Learning Mental Model Personal Mastery Technology Figure134.3- Org chart of the "Learning Organization" Task Force Source: Adapted from Sarder (2016) 73 D- Budget To be proposed when the general survey is completed, scheduled in (E) below E- Action Plan The author would recommend steps for change in Leading Change by Kotter (2012): THE ACTION PLAN (Jul 01, 2017 – Dec 31, 2018) Jul 01, 2017 Dec 31, 2018 Sep 01, 2017 Create a climate for change 11- Create the sense of urgency: PM to diffuse this research to the leadership teams, then employees before Apr 30 CEO to articulate the vision/mission in the new age PIC: CEO, Program Manager (PM) 22- Form the guiding team: to go, talk and form a “alliance” who support the program – to guide, coordinate, and communicate its activities PIC: PM and the other managers 33- Develop a vision with specific expected results PIC: CEO/PM Engaging the whole 44- Articulate the vision to the public, get buy-in PIC: CEO, PM, managers 55- Empower others to act on the vision PIC: PM, managers Dec 31, 2018 Jan 01 – Dec 31, 2018 Implement and sustain the change 66- Celebrate short-term accomplishments - Launch HBS assessment every months Announce and celebrate KPI milestone reached - Update the big picture PIC: CEO, PM, managers 77- Consolidate and build on accomplishments - Adjust KPI Timelines - Re-align teams PIC: PM, managers 88- Institutionalize the “learning organization” PIC: CEO, PM Figure144.4- The Action Plan to Build A “Learning Organization” Source: By author For closing this chapter, let’s borrow Senge’s belief towards the ‘learning organization’: “We believe that, ultimately, the most important learning occurs in the context of our day-to-day life, the aspirations we pursue, the challenges we face, and the responses we bring forth.” (Senge, 1999, p 20) 74 Chapter V - CONCLUDING REMARKS The study reveals that there are six factors that influence LogiGear VN’s learning organization The five disciplines by Senge, which are Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, Team Learning, and Systems Thinking, exist and generate impact at various degrees Among those disciplines, the “Systems Thinking” functions as the most impactful constituent, the capstone for true organizational learning (Senge, 1990, 2006) The 6th factor, which is the new finding in this research, is “Technology” It influences the learning organization in LogiGear VN in two ways: (1) as an “accelerator” in means of information technology tools (software, applications, web-based, cloud-based, e-learning platform, MOOC, etc.) that speed up the learning process and knowledge diffusion, and (2) as a “machine learning” using artificial intelligence (AI) to “reason”, “learn”, and “work” in replacement of humans The 6th factor was also revealed by Phongsichomphu et al (2013) and Sarder (2016) in their studies Since “Systems Thinking” is important, in order to become more effective in practicing this discipline, the leaders at LogiGear VN need to concentrate on the following questions, which Haines (2000) called the “5-Phase ABCDE System”, because these five questions "align directly with the five phases of a system: (1) output, (2) feedback loop, (3) input, and (4) throughput/actions (5) within the dynamic and changing environment." (Haines, 2000: 43-44) (A) Where we want to be? (B) How will we know when we get there? (C) Where are we right now? (D) How we get there from here? And; (E) What is changing in the future external environment that we need to take into account? 75 The company is recommended to employ the model of six disciplines suggested bu the author to build a “learning organization” for LogiGear VN There are a few notions for the “builders” First of all, building a learning organization is a long-term investment with huge commitment from all levels in the company, especially from the top leaders, as it is most and foremost success factor Because, not only building and developing a learning organization require a sufficient financial fund, time and human energy, but also it needs a strong leadership team that supports and reinforces learning culture (Garvin et al., 2008) In this perspective, the top leadership of the company did perform a good leadership However, there is a serious problem in midleadership team Although in it understandable that the mid-managers are packed with daily project and people issues, deadlines, quality assurance, compliance, etc and deliverable, they should take more advantage of facilitating role commanding role More leadership training in both technical and people skills should be provided to them Secondly, there come other two issues that go together: communication and collaboration The interaction across departments has been yet effective and caused deficiency and frustration among staff and managers The company should have strategy to fix this problem properly and immediately Next, the leadership that reinforces learning has issue as well More coaching on leadership should be provided to the mid-managers Refresh their mindset and change it from commanding to serving mindset If a clear and open mind does not prevail, it’s hard to build a learning organization In addition, the company should be aware of the recent deficit in IT labor supply in Vietnam This may become a “lethal weapon” that eradicates all efforts of building a sustainable learning organization Vietnam has been confronting with this crisis since 2015 and continuing suffering it According to a report by Vietnamworks 76 (2015), Vietnam would be in a huge shortage of IT resources, of 500,000 headcounts as at 2020 if the country just produces a steady number of 78,000 graduates a year In other words, the supply can satisfy only a little more than 20% of demand Right in this year of 2017, the hunger for IT resources and the battle to “hunt & steal people” is becoming like a “fatal war” in Vietnam labor market So what has been the impact to learning organization? It is the abnormal, high rate of frequent move-in/move-out of human resources that or even destroys all plans and strategies of the company such as succession planning, capabilities building, TQM, deliverables, and all efforts of building a learning organization At the end of the day, the output of a learning organization is a workforce with highly innovative competence that drives transformation No company can achieve it with such a highly fluctuating human resource In reality, there are not many IT companies in Vietnam that were generally recognized as true learning organizations in Senge’s kaleidoscope So, the journey to build a company into a learning organization is still a quest for success with multiple efforts and pains So, if the company’s goal is the transformation, begin with building a learning organization since it is the concrete foundation for innovation, which in its turn fuels and drives LogiGear Vietnam to transform With that said, the great benefits from a learning organization are certainly worth a try! *** “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” - Alvin Toffler, Futurist 77 References In Vietnamese: Nguyễn Quốc Duy (2015) Đổi sáng tạo nhân tố tác động đến đổi sáng tạo – Tạp chí Kinh tế & Phát triển, 211 (II), trang 37-46 Phùng Xuân Nhạ Lê Quân (2013) Đổi sáng tạo doanh nghiệp Việt Nam Tạp chí Khoa học Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội Kinh tế Kinh doanh, Tập 29, Số 4, trang 1-11 VietnamWorks, 2015 Ngành Công Nghệ Thông Tin Việt Nam thiếu hụt số lượng nhân khổng lồ, HCMC: Retrieved March 2017 from http://blogs.vietnamworks.com/bai-viet/nganhcong-nghe-thong-tin-viet-nam-thieu-hut-so-luong-nhan-su-khong-lo.html In English: Abbasi, E., Akbari, M & Tajeddini, K., 2015 Organizational Learning Capabilities Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 8(1), pp 117-138 ADB, 2009 Learning for Change in ADB Manila: Asian Development Bank Argyris, C., 1977 Double Loop Learning in Organizations Harvard Business Review, No 77502(Sep-Oct 1977), pp 115-124 Argyris, C., 1982 Reasoning, Learning, and Action: Individual and Organizational 1st ed Massachussette: Jossey Bass Argyris, C., 1990 Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning 1st ed New York: Pearson Argyris, C & Schön, D., 1974 Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness 1st ed San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Argyris, C & Schön, D., 1978 Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective 1st ed Massachussette: Addison-Wesley Bersin, J., 2012 Keys to Build A Organization Learning, s.l.: Retrieved Dec-2016 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2012/01/18/5-keys-to-building-a-learningorganization/#109b2514129c Bersin, J., 2017 Robotics, AI And Cognitive Computing Are Changing Organizations Even Faster Than We Thought, s.l.: Retrieved Mar 11, 2017 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2017/03/09/robotics-ai-and-cognitive-computingare-changing-organizations-even-faster-than-we-thought/#51e19857a3f4 78 Bersin, J & Associates, 2010 High Impact Learning Culture, New York: Bersin & Associates Bezerra, C., 2005 Building Innovation Competencies, Queensland University: retrieved Jan-2017 from http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/viewFile/3898/3972 Braun, V & Clarke, V., 2006 Using thematic analysis in psychology Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp 77-101 Bryman, A., 2001 Social research methods New York: Oxford University Press Cambridge Dictionaries, n.d A definition of "Organizational Learning", s.l.: Retrieved Dec 2016 from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/organizational-learning Casuto, S., 2015 How Much Does it Really Cost to Train an Employee?, s.l.: Retrieved from http://elearningmind.com/how-much-does-employee-training-really-cost/ on March 25, 2017 Churgh, R., 2015 Do Australian Universities Encourage Tacit Knowledge Transfer? Lisbon, The 7th Int'l Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, pp 128-135 Crabtree, R., Fox, M & Baid, N., 1997 Case Studies in Coordination Activities and Problems in Collaborative Design, s.l.: Research in Engineering Design Vol Pp 70– 84 Crotty, M., 1998 The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process St Leonards: Allen & Unwin Darroch, J., 2005 Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), pp 101-115 Davenport, T H., 2005 Thinking For A Living: How to Get Better Performance and Results From Knowledge Workers, Boston: Harvard Business School Press Denscombe, M., 2003 The good research guide for small scale social research projects Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2nd ed Derrick-Mills, T et al., 2014 Data use for continuous quality improvement: What the head start field can learn from other disciplines A literature review and conceptual framework, Washington DC: The Urban Institute Doan_Thi_Hong_Van & Bui_Nguyen_Le_Uyen, 2016 Enhancement of Innovation Capacity: Important Solutions to Sustainable Development of Vietnamese Businesses HCMC, Publishing House of Economics, pp 271 - 288 79 Drucker, P., 1999 Management Challenges for the 21st Century New York: Harper Collins Drucker, P., 2015 Innovation and Entrepreneurship Abingdon & New York: Routledge Drucker, P F., 1959 The Landmarks of Tomorrow, New York: Harper and Row Dull, K B., 2016 Transforming from a Traditional to a Learning Organization, s.l.: Retrieved Feb 2017 from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/transforming-from-traditionallearning-organization-kevin-b- Fiol, C M & Lyles, M A., 1985 Organizational Learning Academy of Management Review, 10(4), pp 803-813 Flood, R L., 1999 Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable New York: Routledge Garcia, R & Calantone, R., 2002 A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), pp 110-132 Garvin, D A., 1993 Building a Learning Organization Harvard Business Review, Issue Jul/Aug, pp 78 - 92 Garvin, D A., Edmondson, A C & Gino, F., 2008 Is Yours a Learning Organization? Harvard Business Review, Issue March, pp 1-10 Gerald, J G., 2001 The Tacit Knowing Framework: A Look at Sustained Competitive Advantage under A Unified Tacit and Explicit Knowledge Ontario, The fourth International Conference on Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management Grossman, R J., 2015 How to Create a Learning Culture HR Magazine, pp 5-15 Haines, S G., 2000 The systems thinking approach to strategic planning and management Florida: CRC Press Harvard University, n.d Competency Dictionary (For FY14), s.l.: Harvard Human Resources, retrieved Dec 2016 from http://hr.fas.harvard.edu/files/fashr/files/competency_dictionary_fy14_-_final.pdf Hejazi, Y & Veisi, H., 2007 The explanation of the Organizational Learning Components in Agricultural Higher Education Institutes The Quarterly of Research and Programming in Research and Technology Hess, E., 2014 Learn or Die: Using Science to Build a Leading-Edge Learning Organization s.l.:Columbia Business School 80 Hussein, N., Omar, S., Noordin, F & Ishak, N A., 2016 Learning Organization Culture, Organizational Performance and Organizational Innovativeness in a Public Institution of Higher Education in Malaysia: A Preliminary Study Procedia Economics and Finance, Volume 37, pp 512-519 Jamali, D., Sidani, Y & Zouein, C., 2009 The learning organization: tracking progress in a developing country: A comparative analysis using the DLOQ The Learning Organization, 16(2), pp 103-121 Jashapara, A., 2003 Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical test of the learning organization The Learning Organization, 10(1), pp 31-50 Kim, D H., 2002 Organizing for Learning MA: Waltham Kim, W C & Mauborgne, R., 2005 Blue Ocean Strategy 1st ed New York: Harvard Business Review Press Kiser, M., 2016 Machine Learning Trends and the Future of Artificial Intelligence 2016 Internet retrieved June 2017, http://blog.algorithmia.com/machine-learning-trends-futureartificial-intelligence-2016/(June 8, 2016) Kolb, D A & Fry, R E., 1974 Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning 1st ed Massachussette: M.I.T Alfred P Sloan School of Management Kotter, J., 2012 Leading Change 1R edition ed New York: Harvard Business School Press Kotter, J P., 2012 Accelerate! How the most innovative companies capitalize on today’s rapid-fire strategic challenges – and still make their numbers Harvard Business Review, 90(11), pp 45-58 Kurtz, D L & Boone, L E., 2009 Contemporary Business 2nd ed Ohio: South-Western Cenage Learning Levitt, B & March, J G., 1988 Organizational Learning Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), pp 319-340 LogiGear VN, 2016 Mission Statement, HCMC: LogiGear's corporate profile Loo, S., 2017 Creative Working in the Knowledge Economy Abingdon: Routledge Mayo, A & Lank, E., 1994 The power of learning: A guide to gaining competitive advantage London: Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development (IPD House) McGill, M E., Jr., J W S & Lei, D., 1992 Management Practices in Learning Organizations Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), pp 5-17 81 McLeod, S., 2010 revised 2013 Kolb - Learning Styles, s.l.: Retrieved Nov 2016 from https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html Merriam, S B., 1998 Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Merriam, S B & Associates, 2002 Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Nadeshwar, R L & Jayasimha, B., 2010 Change and Knowledge Management 2nd ed New Delhi: Excel Books Nguyen_Dinh_Tho, 2016 Necessary Capabilities for Firm Performance: An NCA Approach HCMC, Publishing House of Economics, pp 289 - 301 Nguyen_Van_Dung, Nguyen_Trong_Hoai & Nguyen_Son_Kien, 2016 Economic Growth: The Role of Knowledge Economy in the Context of Selected Asian Countries HCMC, Publishing House of Economics, pp - 25 Nichelli, P et al., 1994 Brain activity in chess playing Nature, 369(6477), p 191 Nonaka, I & Takeuchi, H., 1995 The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, New York: Oxford University Press p 284 Nooteboom, B., 1994 Innovation and Diffusion in Small Firms: Theory and Evidence Small Business Economics, Volume 6, Issue 5, p 327–347 OECD, 2010 Ministerial report on the innovation strategy, Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/sti/45326349.pdf: OECD Oppenheimer, D M., 2016 Turn Your Deep Learning Model into a Serverless Microservice Internet retrieved June 2017 http://blog.algorithmia.com/cloud-hosted-deeplearning-models/, Issue July 14, 2016 Oracle Inc., 2013 Seven steps to build a high-impact learning culture, s.l.: Retrieved Nov 2016 from http://www.oracle.com/us/chro-docs/june-2013-chro-deck4-1961622.pdf O'Reilly, C A & Tushman, M L., 2004 The Ambidextrous Organization Harvard Business Review, Issue April 2004, pp 74-83 O'Sullivan, M J., 1999 Adapting to Managed Care by Becoming a Learning Organization Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 26(4), pp 239-252 Oxford Dictionaries, n.d A definition of "Learning", s.l.: Retrieved Nov 2016 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learning 82 Phongsichomphu, Na-Takuatoong & Kaemkate, 2013 Factors Affecting Learning Organization and Innovative Organization, Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Pink, D., 2011 Drive New York: Riverhead Books Polanyi, M., 1966 The Tacit Dimension Chicago: University of Chicago Press Porter, M., 1990 The Competitive Advantage of Nations Harvard Business Review, 90(2), pp 73-95 Rothwell, R., 1992 Successful Industrial Innovation: critical factors for the 1990s R&D Management Journal, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 221-240 Sarder, R., 2016 Building an Innovative Learning Organization New Jersey: Wiley Schumpeter, J., 2017 Reprint of 1939 First Edition Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process Connecticut: Martino Fine Books ISBN-10: 1684220645 Schumpeter, J A., 1934 The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle Massachussette: Harvard University Press, v 46 Schumpeter, J A., 2012 Reprint of 1942 First Edition Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy New York: Simon & Schuster, ISBN 1625585551, 9781625585554 Schwab, K., 2016 The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond, WEF: Retrieved March 2017 from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourthindustrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/ Scouller, J., 2011 The Three Levels of Leadership: How to Develop Your Leadership Presence, Knowhow and Skill 1st ed Gloucestershire, UK: Management Books 2000 ltd Senge, P., 1990 The art and practice of the learning organization The new paradigm in business: Emerging strategies for leadership and organizational change, 126-138 Retrieved from http://www.giee.ntnu.edu.tw/files/archive/380_9e53918d.pdf s.l.:s.n Senge, P., 1999 The Dance of Change: The Challenge of Sustainable Momentum in Learning Organizations New York: Doubleday, pp.20 Senge, P., 2006 Revised Ed of 1990 First Edition The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization New York: Doubeday ISBN-10: 0385517254 Senge, P M., 1990, 2006 The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the LEarning Organization New York: Doubleday 83 Shuffler, M L., Granados, D D & Salas, E., 2011 Team Development Interventions in Organizations SAGE Journals, 20(6), pp 365-372 Silverman, D., 2000 Doing qualitative research: A practical guide." London: Sage Simon, H.(1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning Organization Science, 2(1), pp 125-134 Śledzik, K., 2013 Schumpeter’s View on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, s.l.: Śledzik, Karol, Schumpeter’s View on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (April 29, 2013) Management Trends in Theory and Practice, (ed.) Stefan Hittmar, Faculty of Management Science and Informatics, University of Zilina & Institute of Management by Univers Smith & Tushman, 2005 Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams s.l.:Organization Science INFORMS Stata, R., 1989 Organizational Learning - The Key to Management Innovation MIT Sloan Management Review, 30(3), pp 63-74 Tidd, J & Bessant, J., 2015 Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3rd Ed New York: Wiley Toscano, N., 2015 How Google Develops Talent, s.l.: Retrieved from http://www.skilledup.com/insights/google-develops-talent on MArch 25, 2017 Veal, A J., 2005 Approach, Business Research Method: A Managerial 2nd ed Canada: Pearson World Bank and Ministry of Planning & Investmnet of VN, 2016 Overview on Vietnam to 2035, "Key Message", Hanoi: World Bank, pp XXVI Worley, n., Cummings, T & & Jack, L., 2009 Organization Development & Change, 9th ed s.l.:Cengage Learning Yang, B., Watkins, K E & Marsick, V J., 2004 The Construct of the Learning Organization: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation Humnan Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), pp 31-55 84 APPENDICES Appendix 01: QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW S e n g e ' s M o d e l O r g a n i z a t i o n ( ) o f 9 L e , a r n i n g Self introduction and ask the interviewee introduce him/herself Next, brief the interviewee about research, share them general ideas about "Learning Organization" Then ask "what is your definition about 'learning organization'?", "What you understand about Openning questions LO"? "What constitute a learning organization in your opinion?" * The interviewee is "BLIND" about Peter Senge's philosophy and other theories Questions can be asked interchangably during the interview Staff understands and manages their own work in an interrelationship within the company Systems Thinking environment that includes processes of change; they consider the impact of their own work on the entire company and the stakeholders’ interests Do you think a systems thinking, or a complete system of procedures and processes determine the 1.1 Interrelationship success of a L.O.? 1.2 Environment of collaboration What are constituents of a "systems thinking" in your opinion? Why are they important? How did LogiGear practise the so-called "systems thinking" in its organization? What should LogiGear 1.3 No blockage to learning differently? At the company, staff expand personal growth and capacity by having a strong desire to Personal Mastery improve professionally, engaging in continual learning, and focusing on the future vision in order to make choices about their development 2.1 Greatest motivation Do you think personal mastery critical to learning ability in LogiGear VN? What construct it? 2.2 Willingness to contribute Do you think LogiGear's staff have good motivation to learn or not? Why? 2.3 Self-drive (Pink, 2011) What should the company and employees differently in order to become masters? At the company, staff continually reflect on assumptions about companying; openly dialogue, Mental Models share views and develop knowledge about each other’s assumptions; and engage in their own work with flexibility Does mental model impact "L.O.", what kind of mindset(s) does LogiGear VN currently have, what 3.1 Organization’s culture and framework doesn't? What consitutes "Mental Model" in your opinion? What/How does LogiGear build/promote the so called "mental models" in practice? Company and 3.2 OD approach (Kurt Lewin et al, ) employees? 3.3 Mindsets Vision and goals of company are planned and created through a process of shared commitment, Shared Vision participatory activities, and consensus of all company members; and a staff’s personal vision is aligned with the company vision and goals 4.1 Agreed and valued organization’s goal What would you say about the "shared vision" of the company in means of Senge's definition of "L.O."? 4.2 Inclusiveness 4.3 Harmony of personal goal and organization’s goal Team Learning 5.1 Dialogue How and what LogiGear does to set & share its vision? At the company, various group or team activities are encouraged to address companying issues or staff’s professional work; staff become committed to, skilled at, and involved in collaborative work What type of learning LogiGear VN is applying? What type would you think the most effective approach in LogiGear VN? What constitutes it, in your opinion? 5.2 Teamwork 5.3 Transparency Closing questions What discipline(s) or constituent(s) you deem most critical to the success of LogiGear's "learning organization"? Why? Would you like to add more discipline(s)/constituent(s) to the "learning organization"? Restate that personal identity is coded and kept confidential Thank-you to them for their participation in the research * The left part of this table presents Senge’s five disciplines They are for the researcher and readers to easily follow only, not disclosed to the interviewees 85 Appendix 02: QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP Personal Master: At the company, staff expand personal growth and capacity by having a strong desire to improve professionally, engaging in continual learning, and focusing on the future vision in order to make choices about their development Our staff at the company engage in continuous learning and reflection activities to achieve personal growth Our staff continually work to clarify their professional goals at the company Our staff view the current reality more clearly in terms of targeting their career goals Our staff individual growth is truly valued in the company Our staff have learning opportunities on the job and via inhouse, external training At the company, our staff continually learn to bridge the gap between their current reality and the desired future I 10 II 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 III 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Our staff strive to supplement their lack of skills, capabilities, and knowledge in general during their employement with the company Our staff are motivated to learn from mistakes in their work Our staff clearly understand the process of pursuing their professional development (career path and business title system) At the company, the staff performance review does contribute to their personal growth and career development Mental Model: At the company, staff continually reflect on assumptions about companying; openly dialogue, share views and develop knowledge about each other’s assumptions; and engage in their own work with flexibility Our staff often reflect on assumptions about companying activities with other staff to ensure that they are in line with the company's core values At the company, clearly revealing different perspectives of staff is encouraged as a reflective loop process Our staff learn and change as a result of students’ reactions during teaching Our staff often use the significant events of seminars/workshops/sharing sessions/etc (internal and external) to think about their beliefs about work best practices Our staff change their own leadership/management style to experiment and implement new approaches Our staff actively explore their assumptions and ideas with each other about work practices Our staff are aware of how their convictions and assumptions impact their work practices Our staff can effectively explain their assumptions underlying their reasoning Shared Vision: Vision and goals of company are planned and created through a process of shared commitment, participatory activities, and consensus of all company members; and a staff’s personal vision is aligned with the company vision and goals Our leaders/managers and staff together build the company’s vision and goals Our leaders/managers involve staff in formulating company and classroom policy Our staff develop their personal goals to align with the whole company vision or goals Our managers align group/department goals with the company vision and goals Our managers feel comfortable in sharing ideas with other staff about the company vision Our leaders/managers are committed to a shared vision for the future of our company Our leaders/managers and staff agree on the principles necessary to achieve the company vision When changing work practices, our leaders/managers consider the impact on the company vision and goals 86 IV Team Learning: At the company, various group or team activities are encouraged to address companying issues or staff’s professional work; staff become committed to, skilled at, and involved in collaborative work 27 Our staff feel free to ask questions regardless of gender, age, positions, and professional status at the company 28 29 30 31 32 In conversation, our staff accept other colleagues’ mistakes without criticism In our company, group or team activities are used in training and development activities Small group or team activities are encouraged at our company as a method of dealing with company issues Our staff are treated equally in team activities or task forces Our staff share information across teams and departments with other colleagues Our staff believe that sharing information or knowledge through team activities is useful for solving complex companying problems Our staff respect other peer's ideas and opinions by viewing them from their peer’s perspective Our staff participate in open and honest conversations to share their best practices Systems Thinking: Staff understand and manage their own work in an interrelationship within the company environment that includes processes of change; they consider the impact of their own work on the entire company and the stakeholders’ interests When changing work practices, our staff consider the impact on their results to the inside and outside of the company When dealing with a staff discipline problem, our managers consider the impact on other staff At the company, our staff regard training issues as a continual process rather than with a snapshot or event Our managers attentively link the current companying with staff's career pathways When changing and creating company rules, consistency with the policy of the governments and internal policies is considered Our managers consider the effect on staff when dealing with company challenges 33 34 35 V 36 37 38 39 40 ******** ... Table64.1- Factors that construct Learning Organization in LogiGear 61 Table74.2- Qualtrics for Learning Organization 71 BUILDING A LEARNING ORGANIZATION – THE CASE OF LOGIGEAR VIETNAM. .. Organization from different authors Most of the authors identify the common characteristics of learning organization as the organization has the capacity to learn, adapt and change Yang et al... a Learning Organization , the case of LogiGear Vietnam Keywords: learning, knowledge, learning organization, innovation, information technology, LogiGear Vietnam 2 The ability to learn faster