Abstract:

There are plenty of definitions and descriptions when talking about agile organizations (Cegarra-Navarro, Soto-Acosta, & Wensley, 2015; Felipe, Roldán, & Leal-Rodríguez, 2016; Henderson-Sellers & Serour, 2005; Nerur, Mahapatra, & Mangalaraj, 2005; Oliva, Henrique, Couto, Paulo, & Bresciani, 2019 ; Singh, Sharma, Hill, & Schnackenberg, 2013; Teece, Peteraf, & Leih, 2016), learning organizations (Argote, 1999; Cyert & March, 1992; Pedlar, Burgoyne and Boydell, 1991; Senge, 1991; Wang, 2017), organizational learning (Argyris, 1991; Hodgkinson, 1998;: Kolb, 1984; Leavitt, 2011; Loermans, 2002; Senge, 1990; Senge, 1990; Harrison, 2000; Senge, 1990; March, 1991; Sicilia, Lytras, 2005; Nevis et al., 1995) and their contribution to the enterprise's competitiveness (March, 1991; Edmondson, 2003; Edmondson & Moingeon, 1996; Edmondson & Singer, 2008; Isaacs, 1993; Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Rummler, 2007; Senge, 1990; Smerek, 2018).

This paper aims to, on the one hand, contrast the suitability of a newly suggested Organizational Learning strategy for the enterprise being analyzed in this research. A strategy that contributes to becoming an Agile Learning Organization by the creation of a “Learning, Performance & Development Ecosystem” and the integration of learning habits in the workflow. On the other hand, to contrast the usefulness of a suggested guided process for adapting the suggested Organizational Learning strategy to the enterprise’s reality.

The methodology used is a case study with intervention. We have carried out a three-phase intervention for 10 months using the Design Thinking methodology (Liedtka, 2015; Plattner, Meinel, & Leifer, 2013; Thinking & Thinking, 2012) to adapt the suggested model to the enterprise. It consisted of; phase 1, an initial diagnosis of their learning strategy and structure situation through semi-structured interviews with different roles within the organization and active reading of existing documents. This information has been contrasted with the HHRR head officer and the whole HHRR department. Phase 2, four workshops with the HHRR team to create a sense of urgency about the need to improve their learning strategy and defining their organizational learning strategy. Phase 3, five co-creation sessions for adapting the theoretical model to the enterprise’s reality and defining the process to be followed for designing the “Learning, Performance & Development Ecosystems”. The whole process has been participatory observed.

Results:
The suggested strategy has been suitable to the enterprise’s needs. About the guided processes, the ones for phases 1 and 2 have been successful, not in the case of phase 3. One of the main reasons for its failure could be the ambitiousness to tackle all the organization’s learning structures at once. A solution has been presented to overcome this inconvenience.

Conclusions:
The suggested strategy and adaptation process have contributed to becoming an Agile Learning Organization by enabling us to set up a personalized Organizational Learning Strategy and to create a sense of urgency in the leading team to manage the change process.

Keywords:

Agile organization, design thinking, exploration, exploitation, learning ecosystems, learning organization, organizational learning, learning strategy.