Learning processes features: how do they influence inter-firm differences in technological capability-accumulation paths and operational performance improvement? [1]

The focus of this paper is how key features of the underlying learning processes influence inter-firm differences in technological capability-accumulation paths and, in turn, operational performance improvement in the latecomer context. This set of relationships is examined in two large steel companies in Brazil over their lifetimes of 40 and 60 years. The framework for learning identifies four processes: external and internal knowledge-acquisition, knowledge socialisation and knowledge codification. These processes are examined on the basis of four features: variety, intensity, functioning, and interaction. The study has found that the paths of technological capability accumulation followed by the two case-study companies were diverse and have each proceeded at differing rates over time across different technological functions. These differences were strongly associated with the four features of the learning processes. In addition, the different rates at which the two companies have improved their key operational performance indicators were strongly associated with their rate of technological capability accumulation and, in turn, the key features of their learning processes. The study suggests that the rates of technological capability accumulation and operational performance improvement can be accelerated if deliberate and effective efforts on knowledge-acquisition and knowledge-conversion processes are made within the company.

[1]  Carl J. Dahlman,et al.  From Technological Dependence to Technological Development: The Case of the USIMINAS Steel Plant in Brazil , 1978 .

[2]  Natasa Rupcic,et al.  The fifth discipline-the art and practice of the learning organisation , 2002 .

[3]  Samuel Hollander,et al.  The Sources of Increased Efficiency: A Study of DuPont Rayon Plants , 1965 .

[4]  S. Ville J.-S. Shin, The economics of the latecomers: catching-up, technology transfer and institutions in Germany, Japan and South Korea. London: Routledge. pp. xiv + 214. , 1997 .

[5]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning: A Theory Of Action Perspective , 1978 .

[6]  Charles A. Holloway,et al.  How to integrate work and deepen expertise , 1994 .

[7]  Rod Coombs,et al.  `Knowledge management practices' and path-dependency in innovation , 1998 .

[8]  Dorothy Leonard-Barton,et al.  The Factory as a Learning Laboratory , 2000 .

[9]  E. Nevis,et al.  Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems , 1995 .

[10]  de Figueiredo,et al.  Technological capability-accumulation paths and the underlying learning processes in the latecomer context : a comparative analysis of two large steel companies in Brazil. , 1999 .

[11]  D. Leonard-Barton CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[12]  I. Nonaka,et al.  How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1995 .

[13]  Mauricio Serrao Piccinini Technical change and energy efficiency: A case study in the iron and steel industry in Brazil , 1994 .

[14]  J. Bessant,et al.  High-involvement innovation through continuous improvement , 1997 .

[15]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .