Purpose -The purpose of this research is to get a clear view on how can we judge groups in relation to the characteristics of a community of practice (CoP), and the presence of collective learning in these groups. Design/methodology/approach -A review of literature on collective learning and CoPs led to the development of a conceptual model, which was tested through case study research against empirical data from three groups in organizations. Findings -The groups differed concerning group characteristics, but also concerning the collective learning processes and learning outcomes present. The group that can be characterized as a CoP learns a lot, but the (learning) processes in the group are not always in favour of the organizational learning process.Research limitations/implications -The conceptual framework was helpful to evaluate the characteristics of CoPs in relation to collective learning. These findings suggest that it will be interesting to expand the model, for example with consideration to the way CoPs experience the need to change. Practical implications -The developed framework might help managers to judge if groups in an organization have characteristics of a CoP, if they are in balance and what might be needed to develop towards an ideal CoP with a great learning potential. Originality/value -A first attempt is made to build a framework for judging CoPs for several aspects of their functioning. The research also shows that CoPs are not always stimulating forces for organizational learning.

This article concerns agricultural entrepreneurs involved in organising their learning so as to develop innovative and learning enterprises. In hi-tech sectors, such as Dutch agriculture, this learning and innovative capacity is particularly essential for economic survival. Reviewing the literature, we conclude that innovation can be seen as informal learning processes, in which social networks play an important role. Workers learn by sharing knowledge in the working team and employers learn by creating networks of colleagues and advisers. The results of two research projects suggest that interactive learning and innovation should be analysed from a perspective of uncertainty. Learning skills for interactive innovation, as part of the entrepreneurial craft, should comprise the capability of selecting impulses and combining newly selected impulses with existing skills and routines. Paradoxically, they need new impulses from weak, unknown networks to be continuously innovative. Innovative learning involves balancing the chaos of uncertainty with the old grooves of experience. Knowing how to escape this paradox forms the core competence of innovative entrepreneurship.

PurposeThis paper aims to generate both a theoretical and an empirical basis for a research model that serves in further research as an analytical tool for understanding the complex phenomenon of learning at different levels in a work organisation. The key concept in this model is the routine concept of Nelson and Winter.Design/methodology/approachA review of the literature in the academic fields of educational sciences, industrial sciences, economics, social psychology and sociology is used to develop a conceptual model that could serve as an analytical instrument to describe the ongoing dynamics, i.e. learning processes at different levels. The theoretical findings were tested against empirical data of an industrial bakery in order to evaluate if the theoretical concepts help to identify possible mechanisms that account for parallel learning processes at different levels.FindingsThe paper gives an overview of possible key concepts that helps in explaining what happens at the intersection between individual and team, and team and organisation. This paper concludes that the concept of routines is the most sufficient for understanding the coordinating mechanism between the different aggregation levels in an organisation.Research limitations/implicationsAs organisations are modelled as a set of interlocking routines, innovation can be understood as the change of routines. The central question in future research is: “How do routines change?”Originality/valueBy taking a multi‐disciplinary approach, economic theories on innovation and educational theories on learning are combined. Such combination seems fruitful to bridge individual and organisational learning.

No abstract

No abstract