English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The need for some form of "organizational memory" (OM) has become increasingly recognized by many organizations in the current complex and turbulent business environment. This renewed interest in a topic that has had a chequered career is not due solely to the attentions of the CSCW community, but can be found throughout organisations and in the writings of those researchers studying them. Usually, the concept is described in terms of the "storage" metaphor borrowed from the cognitive science field, where human and computer memories are viewed as similar, thus leading to the view that "storing" and "recalling" are symmetrical operations which do not involve any situational complexities.This, however, is not a very accurate picture of how people actually "remember" in organizations, as the very nature of the memory and even the memory act itself is affected by the changing conditions existing both for the person and in the work environment over time. Thus, in Bannon &amp;amp; Kuutti (1996) we deconstructed the idea of "organizational memory" by reformulating the notion of memory implicit if not explicit in most current views, i.e. the notion of memory as a passive store, arguing instead for an active, constructive view of "remembering" that has a long, if forgotten history within psychology. We also emphasised the need for empirical studies of "memories in use" and common information spaces, and suggested expanding the domain of discourse to include sociological as well as psychological perspectives on concepts such as memory, learning, remembering, talking, etc. in the context of organizations.While we believe that the paper served a useful purpose in directing attention towards a more fruitful line of enquiry about OM, it was mainly a critical review and as such did not elaborate on possible alternative formulations of the concept that would instantiate this shift if perspective from storage to remembering support. This paper moves one step in this direction by outlining a framework within which remembering can be situated, providing some indication of the structure that a support tool for this activity should possess. The framework is constructed by linking two concepts: the modality of remembering and the structure of activity.

Remembering past, present and future—articulating dimensions of “organizational memory” for organizational learning