In this paper, we introduced the origin of learning organizations. Then, we discussed what a recognized “learning organization” is and analyzed the advantages and weaknesses of a learning organization from our own experience. We also compared organization learning and learning organization. After combining our own experience with the opinions from management experts, we brought out what it would be like if working in an ideal learning organization.
Keywords: Organization learning, learning organization.

1. Introduction

Mike Huang, as a born to Cerebral Palsy patient, he wasn't able to receive the normal public education as other people do. The way he received education has been through private tutoring, correspondence courses, and self-learning. Even until the postgraduate level, he chose to study in distance learning programs. But that doesn't mean he is less familiar with public education and its management than other people. In his college years, he studied “Social Science” that covers some studies in education. After that, he chose to study management and business administration for his master degree. What's more, before studying in graduate school, he has spent one year working in a non-profit organization that serves the minority groups in society. He was in charge of the charity marketing department in there thus picked up some skills in organization management. Therefore, he has got to realize and has more understanding in both education and management than others. According to his experience, there are both advantages and weaknesses existing in a learning organization. Nowadays, business incorporations commonly accept and value the idea of “learning organizations (LO)” highly. However, there seem to arguments or confused ideas about its origin. I believe it's very important for them to figure out its origin thoroughly if they want to implement the idea of “LO” into their organizations. So I tried to find out the different opinions and stands of its origin and then draw out a more recognize perspectives. The move in the west to regard companies as learning organizations was signaled by Argyris and Schon in 1978, and is premised on participatory philosophies, learning from collective experience and an acceptance that learning cannot simple be left to chance – it has to be planned.

According to Senge (1990), he defines the Learning Organization as the organization "in which you cannot not learn because learning is so insinuated into the fabric of life." Also, he defines Learning Organization as "a group of people continually enhancing their capacity to create what they want to create." He and Otala (1995) also tell us that the LO is one which is continually expanding its horizons and capabilities through the development of its employees, both individually and collectively, in order to achieve individual and organizational goals.

M. Pedler, J. Burgoyne and Tom Boydell (1991) thinks that "A Learning Company is an organization that facilitates the learning of all its members and continually transforms itself" For Bennett and O'Brien (1994) the LO in industry is not only an organization that is changing but also an organization that is developing and enhancing its capacity to change, i.e. an organization that is focusing on the process and contents of change and the capacities to sustain them. For Garvin (1993) the LO is one which is skilled in creating acquiring and transferring knowledge, and in adapting its behavior in light of the new knowledge gained. McGill et al. (1992) define the Learning Organization as "a company that can respond to new information by altering the very "programming" by which information is processed and evaluated." Miles (1965) introduced a useful metaphor for understanding organizations, arguing that an organization has to be healthy if it is to be able to cope with change. He brought out the three elements that could be evaluated as being healthy– task needs, maintenance needs, and growth and development needs.

In our opinion, a good organization possesses the following characteristics. First, it's a team where every member in it has their own expertise/ talent; where they are able to develop their potential in the team to their fullest under a principled leadership. Also, it's an organization where each member's needs can be fully satisfied. Besides, there should be a positive competition among its members. An organization like this can thus generate commitment and dedication among their members in a collaborative climate. However, it's another business whether each individual can really apply and develop their potential in a team thus create a team of high productivity and promising future. How do we incorporate and integrate individual's expertise into an organization's expertise? Based on these reasons and Miles' statements, I think it's fatal that an organization can keep on “learning”. Only through learning, can an organization cope with change successfully and continue to survive. Therefore, I would define Learning Organization as an "Organization with an ingrained philosophy for anticipating, reacting and responding to change, complexity and uncertainty."

The dimension that distinguishes learning from more traditional organizations is the mastery of certain basic disciplines or ‘component technologies'. The five that Peter Senge identifies are said to be converging to innovate learning organizations. They are:

1.1 Systems thinking--“Seeing the bigger picture” in order to solve the problems existing in the organization, and to get rid of the rigid, fragmented ways of thinking, Senge thinks its fatal for us to observe the interrelations among things and process of change within it. That is to say, we should see the relationships to the whole rather than the individual factors within it so that we won't ignore the whole of the problem in order to solve it right away.

1.2 Personal mastery--“Self Management” In an LO, members are able to learn to expand their capabilities and to create the desirable affects. By doing so, every member in it is encouraged to develop their own potential and can carry out the chosen goals and vision in a supporting environment.

1.3 Mental models--“Seeing the bigger picture” Mental models are the premises, perspective, and images rooted in our minds that affect our realizations of the world and the actions we take.

Our constructs of the world, that, if the organization is to learn, will need to be exposed and shared in the organization, so that new insights will be gained.

1.4 Building shared vision--“Common ideals and directions” vision is a mutual hope, ideal, or objective. Therefore, “shared vision” is a mutual idea or images held by the members in the organization. Based on the personal mastery and individual vision, the organization clarity, integrate, revise, and develop the desirable future by a series of communication, sharing, listening, and profound meeting among its members.

1.5 Team learning--“Thinking together” such learning is viewed as ‘the process of aligning and developing the capacities of a team to create the results its members truly desires (Senge, 1990). It's a process of team members trying to collaborate with one another and together carrying out their mutual objective. In a modern organization, its “team” rather than “individual” that counts as the 2. What is the Role of Information Systems in the Learning Organization?

Although, Huber (1991) explicitly specifies the role of IS in the Learning Organization as primarily serving Organizational Memory, in my view, IS can serve the other three processes (Knowledge Acquisition, Information Distribution, and Information Interpretation) as well. One instance of use of IS in Knowledge Acquisition is that of Market Research and Competitive Intelligence Systems. At this level of planning, scenario planning tools can be used for generating the possible futures. Similarly, use of Groupware tools, Intranets, E-mail, and Bulletin Boards can facilitate the processes of Information Distribution and Information Interpretation. The archives of these communications can provide the elements of the Organizational Memory. Organizational Memory needs to be continuously updated and refreshed. The IT basis of OM suggested by Huber (1991) lies at the basis of organizational rigidity when it becomes "hi-tech hide bound" Kakola (1995) and is unable to continuously adapt its "theory of the business". basic unit of learning. The organization cannot learn unless the team can learn.