“Organisational Learning”. How do we make marginal
gains by debriefing and improving how we do activities,
making best use of knowledge management?
Jennifer Rita McLelland
Submitted for
The MA in Managing and
Leading People M45HRM
Coventry University
Faculty of Business, Environment and Society
Coventry Business School
June 2015
Tutor: Michael McFadden
Statement of Authorship
I certify that this dissertation is my own work and contains no material, which has been
accepted for the award of any degree or diploma in any institute, college or university.
Moreover, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published
or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the
dissertation. I also understand that under no circumstances should any part of this dissertation
be published, including on the Internet, or publicly displayed without receiving written
permission from the school.
.
1
Abstract:
A study was undertaken within West Midlands Police which looked at ‘Organisational Learning’
and how marginal gains can be made by debriefing and improving how they do activities next
time, making best use of knowledge management. The research aimed to examine Senior
Leaders perceptions on the effectiveness of the current formal and informal debriefing process
and how it contributes towards organisational learning and knowledge management.
The qualitative data capture was taken from interviews with Senior Leaders from Local
Policing, Investigation, Public Protection, Learning and Development, Terrorism, and Firearms
Command. The Quantitate research included the HMIC reports, historic and current force
debriefs and policy, current practices from the College of Policing and best practice from
leading forces such as Devon and Cornwall.
It was evident during the research that The Terrorism Command and Devon and Cornwall
Police were more focused with dedicated staff and a different cultural buy in towards learning
throughout the ranks. Creating a different type of environment to share and capture positive
and negative findings post operation or event. The most common phenomena taken from this
research is the cultural differences across departments and forces. The organisations that
choose to progress and focus on the task in hand without creating a learning organisation and
maximising the input of their own staff making experience their best teacher.
The study will provide a number of recommendations based on this research which will be
shared with the Senior Leaders of West Midlands Police.
Acknowledgements:
2
To the staff at Coventry University who have provided support, in particular Michael McFadden
who has always been there and Randhir Auluck who was an inspiration at the start of a long
journey.
To the Leadership Team from Tally Ho Police Training Centre who continued to drive this
programme forward and work in partnership with Coventry University.
To the Senior Leaders from West Midlands Police who found time in their busy schedules to
make a real impact and share their work and life experiences to enable me to complete this
research project.
To my husband Derek who has offered unconditional support and fortitude throughout, and to
my three year old daughter Darcey Mae who has grown into a beautiful little girl since the start
of this programme.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
LIST OF TABLES:................................................................................................................. 6
TABLE OF FIGURES: ........................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONS
8
1.1 Research Background and Relevance ........................................................................ 8
1.2 Research Context ..................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
12
2.1 Review of Literature Research:
12
2.2 Conclusions for Literature Research: ......................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
24
3.1 Introduction and rationale for proposed methodology; ............................................... 24
3.2 Review of research paradigms: ................................................................................. 27
3.3 Methods .................................................................................................................... 29
3.4 Measures................................................................................................................... 31
3.5 Combining the measures ........................................................................................... 32
3.6 Population ................................................................................................................. 32
3.7 Sample ...................................................................................................................... 32
3.8 Reliability and Validation............................................................................................ 33
3.9 Research Limitations and Constraints ....................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
34
4.1 Testing relevance……………………………………………………………………………34
4.2 Respondents sample……………………………….…….…………………………….……34
4.3 Perceptions of the current informal and formal debriefing process ……………………35
4.4 The main priorities in relation to organisational learning……………………...…………37
4.5 Senior Leaders accounting for their staffs perceptions ………………..…………...…..39
4.6 Organisational learning and knowledge management .......................…………………40
4
4.7 Current debriefing process ………………………………………………..………………..41
4.8 Break down in organisational learning ………………………………….………………...42
4.9 Barriers to organisational learning and knowledge management………………………43
4.10 Making best use of organisational learning and knowledge management……..…….44
4.11 External review of critical incident debriefing and management of data……………...45
4.12 Historic and current debriefs with recommendation.……………………………………46
4.13 Management of the knowledge management from critical incident debriefs…...……47
4.14 Forces journey 2008-2015 organisational learning and knowledge management…..47
4.15 National position from College of Policing…………...…………………………………..48
4.16 Comparison force .................................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
49
5.1 Discussion: ................................................................................................................ 49
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
51
6.1 Introductions .............................................................................................................. 51
6.2 Findings from the study ............................................................................................. 52
6.3 Recommendations..................................................................................................... 53
6.4 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................... 55
REFERENCES:
57
APPENDICES:
61
5
LIST OF TABLES:
Table 1: Three types of collective knowledge Hecker (2012)……………………………….14
6
TABLE OF FIGURES:
Figure 1: The Knowledge Spiral , Nonaka, Takeuchi (1995)................................................ 14
Figure 2: The Conscious Competence Learning Model, Burch (1970) ................................ 17
Figure 3: The Experiemental Learning Cycle, Kolbs (1997)................................................. 18
7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONS
1.1 Research Background and Relevance
“A firm’s competitive advantage depends more than anything on its knowledge: on what it
knows, how it uses what it knows and how fast it can know something new”, (HR Magazine
2009: 1).
West Midlands Police was first formed on 1st April 1974 with 5,282 officers. The Force now
has 7,249 officers to cover a population of over 2.8 million, over 348 square miles and is the
second largest force in the country. The force is divided into 10 Local Policing Units which
includes three major cities Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton. In November 2008
Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary’s (HMIC) reviewed the management of critical
incidents, which included the debriefing model and how we learn and move forward. The
feedback suggested that there were areas for improvement and stated, “While there is a
debriefing model in place and inspectors are expected to conduct such debriefs following
deployment, other than for pre-planned operations these can be ad hoc and ineffective. The
hot debrief section of operational orders are routinely not completed and thus opportunities to
learn and develop are lost. Officers did not believe that debriefing was effective and comments
such as ‘there is no apparent organisational learning as far as I’m concerned’ and ‘there’s a
major need for more debriefs so that learning can be disseminated force-wide were
widespread” (HMIC Protective Services, 2008: 19). This gave the force an opportunity to look
at current practices.
The HMIC inspection in 2008 was the start of the journey for WMP looking at ways of improving
the way in which structured debriefing would move forward. These findings together with
historic and current debriefs provide an overview of the current position and how effective the
current process is linked to learning and organisational knowledge management.
8
Between 2008 and 2015 austerity has influence a number of change programmes which have
seen a reduction in staffing numbers and back office functions. This has had a significant
impact on the development of organisational learning and debriefing. In 2012 there was a
structured process and policy utilising the private sector to record and administrate this
function.
The ownership was passed between departments and now sits with force
intelligence, lacking continuity and senior leadership support.
A formal debriefing process is shared via the force intranet and shows evidence of the lessons
learned in 2008. A number of debriefs are available for others to share the learning. The
reports do not reflect the amount of critical incidents across the force over the last 7 years and
although there is some improvement, the research will look at further ways to make changes.
There is no reinforcement if a debrief is not completed or support from Senior Leadership
teams to drive this forward. This creates a force which learns by exception and not a learning
organisation who effectively converts tacit knowledge into the explicit for all to share (Nonaka:
2000).
There has been a significant change with the National College of Policing. There is now a
team of individuals that drive best practice for structured debriefing with a new policy about to
be launched in 2015. Likewise the growth of the Terrorism Command Unit has seen immense
changes to the way in which they do business to maximise their area of expertise and
professionalise what they know and share with others.
WMP are driving forward a new WMP2020 programme which focuses on four areas of
business:
1.
Designed to listen and reassure
2.
Geared to prevent harm
3.
Prepared to respond at pace
4.
Ready to learn and adapt
9
All of these areas of business are heavily influenced by knowledge and organisational
learning. Number 4; Ready to learn and adapt refers to the “empowering our people to
contribute their ideas for how we can improve on a daily basis”. Recognising that it is an
essential requirement to collect the learning from critical incidents and pre-planned events but
also the ongoing learning on a daily basis which is lost and not passed on to the next person
to manufacture and develop. The opportunity is then lost to create a knowledge infrastructure
which is part of daily business.
How do we manage our communication for good practice and utilise the skill, talent and
experience across the force which moves around with promotion or change programmes?
What processes do we have in place to extract information from officers who retire or leave to
join another force? It is no wonder we continue to make the same mistakes and leave our
communities wondering why the police have not fulfilled their obligation of making them feel
safer in their own homes when they have not learned from past experiences.
1.2 Research Context
The initial focus was around organisational change, organisational learning and conflict
management. Environmental scanning showed that it was much deeper and knowledge
management was the overriding influence with the current debate. Do the officers with 30
years’ service know what they know? Or would they retire and take that experience and
knowledge with them?
The research will be limited due to the time constraints; however there is real value in exploring
the position of the force, specialist command units and the national college to see what good
looks like and where exactly do WMP currently sit. Does the force learn from the other forces
across the country or do we also work in isolation and not learn or share from others on a
global basis. Will there be a benefit in working closely with the national college of policing and
the terrorist command units who have dedicated staff to manage their learning.
10
Organisational culture will be looked at throughout this research and the qualitative data will
be taken from personal interviews with Senior Leaders across the force. This will capture their
perception on how effective they think the current processes for organisational learning are in
place and how much importance they place on it within their own area of business.
Organisational Learning and knowledge management has been developed significantly over
the past 20 years.
“While is impossible to accurately quantify the number of business
organisations which have attempted to develop and implement knowledge management
systems, various surveys suggest that a significant number of organisations have undertaken
such initiative (Coakes et al, 2010: Griffiths and Moon 2011: KPMG 2000, 2003).
A study by Bogner and Bansal (2007) suggests that the performance of an organisation is
strongly linked to the level of knowledge and the more successful organisations have an ability
to ‘recycle’ new knowledge to improve an organisations future activities by the creation of
knowledge (Bogner, Bansall 2007).
1.3 Research Objectives
‘Organisational Learning’ how do we make marginal gains by debriefing and improving how
we do activities, making best use of knowledge management?
There are three main outcomes for this research:
1) Examine Senior Leaders perception on how effective is the formal and informal
debriefing process is to provide organisational learning?
2) Explore the effectiveness of the learning captured through formal and informal
processes and to improve effectiveness and efficiency and the impact of
knowledge management?
3) Use the findings of this research to make recommendations to the Senior
Leadership Teams and identify any area of improvement?
11
Chapter 2 - Literature Review
2.1 Review of Literature Research
The process of utilising the knowledge gained from others which has been captured,
developed and shared was a new phenomenon in 1991 under the new heading ‘knowledge
management’. How can knowledge be at its most dynamic and effective and what are the
barriers and resistance to knowing what the knowledge is enabling it to be shared (Nonaka
1991). Davenport developed this concept and would argue that knowledge management is
about the process of capturing, developing, sharing and effectively using organisational
knowledge and less about the human contact (Davenport 1994).
Nonaka and Takeuchi will state that there are two types of knowledge tacit and explicit
knowledge. The tacit knowledge is the information which is owned by the individual and gives
them insights, intuition and judgement and the explicit which is articulated and shared via
training programmes or formal briefings. It can be argued that tacit knowledge may not be
known by an individual, compared to explicit knowledge which is articulated to everyone.
Nonaka and Takeuchi argue the Japanese emphasise tacit knowledge, whilst westerners tend
to rely on explicit knowledge which is more formal and objective. Tacit knowledge is intangible
and can be undervalued because it is difficult to measure and record (Nonaka, Takeuchi
1995).
In 1955 Nonaka, Ikujiro, Takeuchi and Hirotaka recognised the contextual and relational
aspects of knowledge and the different elements of socialisation, externalisation,
internalisation and combination. This was seen as a progression from the identification of the
two types of knowledge and can be argued that there are different ways in which we learn and
gain knowledge, differentiating between the four areas (Nonaka, Ikujiro, Takeuchi, Hirotaka,
1995).
12
Figure 1 - The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995.
In 1999 this concept was developed again and it was described as being a multi-disciplined
approach of knowledge sharing. Organisations continued to learn, improve and override
complications by using innovation.
This made the best and use of the organisations
knowledge base giving them a professional advantage over competitors (Alavi, Maryam,
Leidner, Dorethy 1999). A more detailed collection of knowledge types was developed by
Hecker in 2012. Hecker refers to different groups holding varied levels of knowledge, which
is then shared within a community and can be used to manage the customer or community
more effectively. This is referred to as collective knowledge shown below.
Type of Collective
Definition
Locus
Relationship to
Knowledge
Shared knowledge
Origin
individual knowledge
Knowledge held by
Individuals
individuals in a group
Overlapping, common
Shared experience
knowledge
Complementary
Knowledge regarding
Interdependencies
Specialised division of
knowledge
the division of
between individual
knowledge within a
expertise within a
knowledge
group
group
13
Artefact-Embedded
Knowledge embedded
Knowledge
Artefact
Combinations of
Codification and
in collective, group
individual knowledge
articulation of
artefacts
in an articulated form
knowledge
Table 1 Hecker’s (2012) Three Types of Collective knowledge
Some theorists will distinguish between organisational learning and knowledge management.
It can be argued that knowledge management could be isolated to a technological system
where employees are called upon to assist with their activity. In comparison organisational
learning is about implementing the ‘ideal’ and learning from both positive and negative aspects
of the organisation in both controlled and uncontrolled mechanisms referred to as formal and
informal debriefing (Rajan, Lank and Chapple 1999).
Organisational learning is now regarded as having significant advantages. If a company or
institute can produce certain products or change their techniques using innovation to bring a
service back to the market place and beat the competitor, the balance sheet will show growth
and benefits will be seen (Buchanan and Huczynski 2004). John Burgoyne will argue that
after a decade of working through a number of organisational issues not many companies will
show evidence of this in their findings. However Burgoyne will argue that organisational
learning takes time and quick results will not be achieved within this definition. He will state
that it takes time to reach success which gives organisations with longer term strategies a real
opportunity to see the change and gain the long term rewards (Burgoyne 1999).
Organisational learning can have a positive and negative impact; the positives will show a
multidimensional company with an innovative approach to learning. It will focus on intellectual
capital and the development of corporate and individual knowledge. The negative impact
would lack innovation and change the teams dynamics (Coles 1998). Harry Scarborough is
critical of this work and will argue that a company which focuses on organisational learning
14
through technological systems will tend to overlook different ways in which people can develop
through learning and sharing knowledge during their working activities. He will also argue that
an organisation will strengthen the management control and lose innovation (Scarborough
1999).
Large companies such as BP and Shell International have been involved in intensive
knowledge management development for the past decade and have seen organisational
learning be a global entity which has seen new ways of working, sharing knowledge with over
4,000 members (Carrington 2002). In comparison, policing can become very task focused
and learning can become a commodity which is too lengthy and drawn out. Research shows
that “The great majority of individuals involved in policing is committed to honourable and
competent public service and is consistently demonstrating high standards of personal and
procedural integrity in performing their duties.
Still more would probably do so if the
appropriate institutional and training was given then more would be achieved” (Gottschalk
2009:9).
Debriefing in the police is defined as “improving police activity by highlighting areas of good
practice as well as examining actions that were less successful, it allows early resolution of
incidents where mistakes have been made and provides opportunities to resolve any
complaints from members of the public” (WMP intranet 2015). However the harsh reality is it
costly and time intensive.
Systems and processes have developed with time but the
governance and learning opportunities have reduced. During the recent periods of austerity
it has been common place to hear Senior Police Leaders talk about their response achieving
more with less. Martin Innes will state that “Whilst over the short term it is possible to ‘squeeze
and sweat’ available assets, it is difficult to sustain this over the long term. He will argue that
rather than following the ‘do more with less’, policing needs to start thinking seriously about
how ‘to do less with more’ (Innes 2014).
This argument supports the way in which
organisational learning needs to be adapted and embraced, finding ways to develop the
15
principles of co-production with partners and make our police officers more flexible, agile and
knowledgeable.
It can be argued that knowledge management is not a complicated concept to follow and can
be the key to success, it is organic and will grow with the organisation. “It’s not about creating
an encyclopaedia that captures everything that anybody ever knew. Rather, it’s about keeping
track of those who know the recipe, and nurturing the culture and the technology that will get
them talking” (Collison, Parcell 2004:16).
A study took place in 2007 which looked at the importance of knowledge creation from five
industries (pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, forest products, oil and gas, and automotive).
The study showed that the high performing industries were closely linked to an organisations
level of knowledge and the second was linked to their performance in business and was
heavily influenced by the ability for an organisation to re-cycle their knowledge (Bogner,
Bansal, 2007). The corporate memory in large international companies are vast but findings
will state that employees do not know who to ask or where to go to. Who are the experts with
the academic knowledge, specialist life-skills who are required at a time of crisis? “Key to
learning is to know what others have done and be able to reach them easily. Know-how is
organically held by the community or network and constantly reused, revised, adapted and
distilled. Key to knowing who, and being able to reach them, is a yellow pages or index of
people’s skills, experiences and contact details” (Collison, Parcell, 2004).
When we learn we are not always conscious of what we know. In the 1970s a psychologist
Noel Burch suggested a model to master relationships and skills, calling it the "conscious
competence learning model". This model was reproduced and referred to by BP International
and influenced their conscious and unconscious learning (Collison, Parcell, 2004:26). Collison
and Parcell will argue that knowledge management needs to be an unconscious competence
16
which is delivered by persons within an organisation as a matter of course and without a
conscious influence. The police force provides examples of both conscious and unconscious,
for example, firearms commanders will complete formal briefing and debriefings as part of
their role as this is built into their training and it is a formal part of their role. In comparison
when a vulnerable person goes missing and police and partner agencies are working together
to locate and safeguard the victim a structured debrief needs to be orchestrated by the Senior
Leader in charge and very often the case is closed without the informal or formal learning
taking place.
Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence
Basic level of knowledge and completely unaware of this status, they can be in a leadership
role where they are invited to guide and share good practice.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence
They have a basic level of knowledge and find it difficult to move forward and develop.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence
The level of competence has improved and they are starting to move forward and develop,
making them competent in their role.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence
The knowledge has been internalised and subconsciously put in to practice.
Figure 2 – Conscious competence learning model Burch 1970s.
The term ‘Learning Organisation’ is closely linked to knowledge management; it does however
have its own definition. David Garvin will argue that it needs structure, the meaning, the
management and the measurement. It is a place “Where people continually expand their
capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking
are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning
how to learn together” (Garvin,1998:49).
17
What is crucial to understand the concept of organisational learning is ‘what is learning’?
“Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of
experience” (Kolb, 1984:38). Kolb focused on the learning through experience.
1. Concrete experience, the do
2. Reflective observation, the observe
3. Abstract conceptualization, the think
4. Active experimentation, the plan
Figure 3 - Kolb’s Experimental Learning Cycle 1984.
Police forces across the world rely on experience to react to a critical incident or dynamic call
for service. Either way it can be argued that experience is a silent teacher which has been
watered down over the past decade due to financial restraints and police cuts. Kleiner and
Roth will argue that experience is called upon in our personal lives to avoid the same mistakes
happening again. If a major business event or a critical incident occurs, organisations stumble
through oblivious to any lessons they may have learned before, during or after. Mistakes get
repeated but the brave, smart decisions do not. “Individuals will often tell you that they
understand what went wrong (or right). Yet their insights are rarely shared openly. And they
18
are analysed and internalised by the company even less frequently. Why? Because managers
have few tools with which to capture institutional experience, disseminate its lessons, and
translate them into effective action” (Kleiner, Roth 1998:137).
Kleiner and Roth will state that employee surveys are often used to capture data, which is
unprofessional and fails to provide the organisation with any value. If ‘something big’ has
occurred a private consultant may be arranged who will offer a final report with
recommendations. This can be some time after the event and can get lost in translation
through the lapse of time. The more simple debriefs can be referred to as ‘storytelling
experiences’ which can provide organisations with a collective delve into the past and a group
learning session for everyone involved. In order to impact on the corporate memory there
must be a process of recording and depersonalising the learning. This often gets left behind
in the briefing room so yet again the learning is not delivered to a central point to be shared.
The challenge is now to use the ‘explicit knowledge’ which has been extracted through a formal
or informal briefing to impact on the organisational learning and looking at taking this process
forward. For example earlier work already discussed (Nanak, von Krogh, 2009). Another
proposal which has been taken from the framework of knowledge looks at the ‘new
knowledge’. Innovation which has been transferred or exploited from established knowledge
contained within a group, community or organisation (Hayes, Walsham, 2003). They will argue
that the use of technology is paramount to create and transfer the knowledge taken from this
concept. Over the past decade this as moved on considerably with the College of Policing
capturing the experience of Jonathan Crego and the use of the 10,000 volts technological
system which seeks to use networked computers to simultaneously capture data from
anonymous sources. Crego will argue that this is by far better than anything in the past and
the participants are able to express their views openly without any fear of consequences, there
is no limit to the exploration of sensitive, controversial or ethical issues and the quieter voices
19
in the room get heard (Crego, 2015). This debriefing programme design has captured learning
from catastrophic disaster, child abuse and murder and collectively provides the client with an
instant report of findings. The reality however is very different, the likely hood of having this
technology in police forces across the UK is uncertain and expensive. It is not the big jobs or
the serious crime types which create the most learning it is the routine calls for service which
need to be recorded. This shows that the systems and processes are not used effectively to
manage daily business.
Alan McKinley and Phil Taylor (2000) looked at the team working in the Scottish plant of the
American manufacturer for cell phones. The research focused on mutual control, peer
pressure and self-surveillance. The managers would manufacture ‘peer reviews’. Individuals
would be required by their managers to rate their colleagues. In essence the management
teams used group phycology to harness the performance within the company. This was tamed
over a period of time when the teams equalised scores and softened the initial distrust which
was building across teams. (McKinley, Taylor, 2000).
Organisations learn from each other, within BP International Collison and Parcell will suggest
that a peer assist can be a great asset. The concept of a peer assist “is a meeting or workshop
where people are invited from other organisations and groups to share their experiences,
insights and knowledge with a team who have requested some help early on in a piece of
work” (Collison, Parcell 2004:98). They will argue that this helps utilise the insights of others,
gives a different perspective, promotes the learning and sharing from each other and develops
the essential networks, providing a review of each other work as discussed by McKinley and
Taylor. In contrast the motivation of BP International shows adaptable open mind thinking with
less resistance and peer pressure. Essentially the team who work dynamically together to
solve problems are seen to be more open and flexible and less resistant to change and
achieving high performance (Collison, Parcell, 2004).
20
There is a decision that workers face each day as to whether they believe sharing their
knowledge if for the good and benefit of society. Even if they have had little contribution it
could be argued that it is public knowledge and should be shared with partners, communities
and anyone else who can benefit from it (Renzl 2008). Sharing of knowledge can create other
complexities and emotions.
This was discovered by Van den Hooff et al in 2012 who
conducted a survey in Holland with workers from an IT company. He research shows that the
reasons why people would be resistant to sharing are down to their emotional state. The main
two considerations were pride and empathy, both having a significant impact on their
emotional attitude towards helping others. He concluded by stating that if someone is proud
of a particular aspect they are more likely to share their knowledge than someone who
believes that this knowledge gives them power. The negative hypothesis is taken from the
hoarder of knowledge or the free-rider; those who have not worked to gain that knowledge but
have taken it from someone else with little effort (Van den Hooff 2012).
“One cannot change the spots on a leopard. Many would say it is almost as difficult to make
substantial changes to an organisation” (Martin 2008:1). Organisations are more successful
to meet demands and new challenges if they adapt to change take on new knowledge and
move forward. Martin will argue that a leopard that does change his spots can thrive and
adapt in their new environment (Martin 2008).
Culture is a major part of changing an
organisation, Pan and Scarbrough will state that culture can be changed and developed but
in doing so it is daunting and complex with time consuming consequences. The only effective
way to change the knowledge sharing culture is by the Senior Leaders who will need to change
the climate to shape the future across space and time (Pan, Scarbrough, 1999). It can
therefore be argued that culture is one of the most influential resisters to the sharing of
knowledge management. An organisation which creates innovation and learning will create a
better environment. The culture needs to be externally focused to the customer or community
where the culture is flexible and adaptable, creativity, innovation and values are encouraged,
21
shared and rewarded (Sanz-Valle et al. 2011). Culture needs to be addressed by Senior
Leaders and be given an external purpose, making the workers feel authentic and valued.
This then creates the right setting to learn, share and move forward.
Whilst the process of forgetting knowledge and unlearning are not at the forefront of academic
literature in the knowledge management arena, it is an essential part of learning to unlearn
and move on (Lee 2011: Zahra et al 2011). If this process if not considered then any change
programme can become even more challenging by the overload of historic data and the upload
of new. Organisations who do not have a robust way of archiving knowledge management
will get weighted down by out of date policy and procedures referred to as ‘competency traps’
(Shipton 2006). Where there are high levels of turbulence, the management of data and the
processes of unlearning becomes even more crucial and there is evidence to suggest that
organisations that rarely weed out the old to bring in the new will fail due to their inability to
systematically unlearn (Cannon, Edmondson 2005). This suggests that for an organisation to
be smart needs to consider the management of new knowledge and the disposal of historic
knowledge and data.
The final stage involved in the management of knowledge is the evaluation taken from a formal
or informal debrief. Knowledge can be accessed at any of the three stages: before, during or
after any knowledge management activity (Bontis, Choo, 2002). There are a number of
organisations who have launched incentives to encourage content submissions however
research shows that this has little impact (Benbasat, Zmud 1999). “Repeatable processes
eliminates repeatable mistakes” (Collison, Parcell 2004:234). Collison and Parcell will argue
that if this data is shared effectively it can benefit other parts of the global organisation.
Evidence of this was shown when petrol stations from BP International were built in Venezuela
and Japan which captured learning, this later assisted Poland. This defines the true concept
and effectiveness of managing and sharing knowledge in order to contribute and learn as an
organisation. The private industry shows evidence of being more dynamic and innovative
22
compared to the public sector who work in isolation and become very task focused (Collison,
Parcell 2004).
When a learning organisation has mastered the art of knowledge management it then needs
to release the knowledge managers by taking a step back and leaving the organisation to
stand alone and continue to share and learn. Once the concept is embedded the systems
and processes should manufacturer themselves.
and after an event?
Is the organisation learning before, during
Is there a process in place for capturing that learning? Who are the
people involved, or do each department stand alone and manage this effectively? When the
information is gleamed who is now responsible and accountable for the sustainability of this
knowledge? Findings show that if these answers are part of a strategy within an organisation
then organisational learning and knowledge management will be a standalone success
(Collison, Parcell 2004).
2.2 Conclusions for Literature review
The purpose of this chapter is to focus on the research question and review a number of
citations in the academic sphere of knowledge management and see how the findings then
compare to the research taken from West Midlands Police. It has been suggested that a
motivational organisation shares knowledge without barriers and obstacles to hinder
development and learning.
This academic research to date shows limited studies within the police service looking at the
concept of knowledge management. This in itself shows that police forces tend to work in
isolation and sometimes lack innovation and lack focus on organisational learning. This may
be due to the sensitive nature of the cases or information. There is adequate research to
suggest that the private sectors within large international company’s use knowledge
23
management and organisational learning to adapt, change and improve their profit and
customer service.
This research project will focus on the views of Senior Leaders who will be asked to account
for their contribution towards organisational learning and knowledge management and what
the barriers or limitations are with the current systems. It will focus on current practices from
a force, regional and national perspective.
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introductions and rational for proposed methodology
Methodology is a systematic, theoretical analysis of methods used during study. It includes
the theoretical analysis of principles and methods associated with knowledge.
It can
encompass the paradigm and theoretical model alighted to the phases of quantitative or
qualitative techniques (Imy, Rose 2005). The research paradigm will be outlined in this
chapter together with the data collection process and writers rationale outlining the chosen
methods and the research population.
It will show the process of the data collection and the restraints but will also identify the chosen
methodology to best capsulate the way in which we encourage organisational learning by
debriefing and making best use of knowledge management. “The embedding of individual
and group level learning in organisational structure and processes, achieved through reflecting
on and modifying the norms and values embodied in established organisational processes
and structures” (Zietsma et al. 2002:61).
It is essential to establish what research method will be used taken from the following:
quantitative, qualitative or a mixed method approach. With Qualitative research using nonnumerical and unstructured data and the quantitative research will use the hard facts and
24
study the framework and design of those relationships (Punch 2005). From this research that
a combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods would provide different perspective
and more detailed findings.
Whatever the chosen method the researcher should critically assess the validity and reliability.
Without reliability there is no validity which is the concept taken from ‘The Standards of
Education and Psychological testing’ (Crocker, Algina 1986). “Reliability is the extent to which
a test or procedure produces similar results under constant conditions” (Bell, Waters
2014:121). “If two interviewers using the same schedule or procedure get a similar result and
have the same interpretation of the question it will be acceptable (Wragg 1980:17). The
validity is more complex. “The design of research to provide credible conclusions; whether
the evidence can bear the weight of the interpretation that is put on it” (Sapsford, Jupp 2006:1).
They will argue that in order to determine the strength of a piece of research the conclusions
must be easily drawn from it. It would also be able to reveal whether the findings would not
be available (Sapsford, Jupp 2006). Therefore validity and reliability are important concepts
when finalising which research tools will be used at all or after the fact.
The knowledge management literature review provided a vast amount of research which
involved the private sector and the impact of knowledge sharing, the learning process, analysis
and choices, conflict and organisational choices.
Which contribute and influence the
progression of organisational learning and knowledge management? Booker et al in 2008
shared the findings of a study involving research within the public and private sector where
twelve interviews were conducted. This sample snowballed due to the lack of documentary
research and relevant persons being nominated by the original sample.
The findings also reflected the lack of time most Senior Leaders have to re-invest in ‘learning
the lessons’. It proved that it was down to the academic language used in the findings and
recommendations which were unhelpful; it was also made unreadable by a professional who
was not familiar with the terminology used within the knowledge management arena (Booker
25
et al 2008). In review of these findings the methodology needs to clear and concise sampling
having some element of flexibility realism with only one researcher completing the study. The
recommendations need to be legible and clear for the reader to be able to interpret and relate
to their area of business.
The focus for this research was initially taken from the findings of Her Majesty Inspectorate of
Constabulary in 2008 where the concept of organisational debriefing was challenged and
recommendations were made to progress and move forward. (HMIC WMP Critical incidents,
2008). A considered approach was formalised and the force was seen to progress with formal
and informal debriefing making a positive impact on the findings from critical incidents which
involved flooding, kidnap and extortion, public order, and dynamic operations which involved
police and partner agencies. The journey of organisational learning and debriefing continued
throughout WMP. The tacit knowledge turned into the explicit was creating tangible knowledge
to impact on future learning (Nonaka et al 2000). This critical part of the journey is where the
systems and process of West Midlands Police in 2015 need to be reviewed. Is this a success
story or are there elements of the force leading the way to improve and learn. This will be
discussed in the findings.
The research was limited to the perceptions of Senior Leaders within West Midlands Police to
review the findings of their effectiveness and leadership in this area and to capture their own
values and perceptions around organisational learning and knowledge management. The
studies of knowledge management and leadership have been aligned by Von Krough in 2012
where he found correlation between the style of leadership necessary to facilitate knowledge
management and learning (Von Krough 2012). An earlier study in 2010 by Lee showed how
leadership, trust, knowledge sharing and team performance were all closely linked.
In
agreement with Von Krough, knowledge management heightened team performance and also
made reference to the role of a knowledge manager who effectively manage the new approved
knowledge which has been abstracted (Lee et al 2010).
26
The general approaches of positivism identifies the facts observes behaviours and the
interpretivism which observes their understanding (Burrell, Morgan, 1979). Interpretivism is
the preferred option with focus on a smaller scale sample enabling more depth of investigation
to capitulate emotion and opinion.
Large scale questionnaires lack detail and provide
scientific facts and figures.
3.2 Review of research paradigms
“There is no single pathway to good research but there are always options and alternatives.
At any stage of any enquiry, researchers need to take decision, make judgements and use
discretion in order to successfully complete a project” (Denscombe 2010:3). The selection of
qualitative and quantitative is a comparison of fact and emotion and are influencing factors
which contribute the decision.
The qualitative research method “adopts a qualitative
perspective to understand that an individual are more concerned with and their perceptions.
This approach can be used when dealing with human beings” (Punch 2005:28). This research
is focused away from numerical research and draws our attention to the important
characteristics of the qualitative research. The research included questions start with a real
generalisation before becoming more focused (Bell 2014). In comparison to the quantitative
research which “collects facts and the relationship of one set of facts to another. They use
‘numerical data and, frameworks and designs’ (Punch 2005:28). A cross verification of both
can also be defined as the triangulation concept when more than two methods are used in the
study of the same phenomenon. Bogdan and Biklen in 2006 combined methodology to make
it a more powerful technique (Bogdan, Biklen 2006).
The police service hold a number of facts and figures through human resource management
and performance, social science and the emotional behaviours are an important part of the
police service but more difficult to quantify and analyse. Previous researchers have defined
policing as a science of human behaviours “Police science is the scientific study of the police
as an institution and of policing as a process” (Jaschke et al 2007:23). In support of Jaschke
27
any research which is conducted within the police service would benefit from a balanced
triangular approach of both quantitative data and more personalised detailed qualitative
interviews.
When the strategy is set and clearly defined, clarity needs to be sort when selecting the
appropriate methods. Understanding the balance of what quantitative surveys can provide,
Aldridge and Levine point out that “Each survey is unique, therefore, lists of do’s and don’ts
are too inflexible. “A solution to one survey may not work in another” (Aldridge, Levine 2001:5).
In comparison qualitative interview can offer advantages and disadvantages, Moser and
Kalton describe the survey interview as a conversation between interviewer and respondent.
With the purpose of eliciting certain information from the respondent (Moser, Kalton 1971:271)
the interviewer can have great advantages, and a skilful interviewer can probe ideas and
responses. These however are more time consuming and although they add more detail and
meat on the bones there is a reduced number that can be completed with a limited time frame
(Bell 2014).
Ethnographic research is another type of research which can offer a deeper more
comprehensive understanding of a particular group or culture; this involves living in their
environment for a period of time. For example if a study is taking place which involved culture
changes in gangs (Brewer 2000). Observations provide a closer insight and may provide more
accurate data compared to groups who may not wish to engage using other methods of
research.
In conclusion the researchers paradigm is best described as being “An overview of the whole
project that uses ‘the bigger picture’ as the basis for deciding how to approach the research
combined with the carefully constructed research design which provides a plan of action,
rationality which is likely to offer the best prospects of success” (Denscombe, Martyn, 2010:4).
28
3.3 Methods
A mixed strategy provides the researcher with the opportunity to combine the evaluation of
different data sources and compare perspectives on a phenomenon. It also combines aspects
of other strategies which will then triangulate the findings (Denscombe 2010).
The quantitative data capture will be taken from a number of sources;

A number of historic and current debriefs which show recommendations and areas of
improvement.

The report from Her Majesty Inspectorate of Constabulary.

The policy and process mapping of the debriefing structure and the outcomes of
recommendations outlining what has changed and why.

Policy and documentation from the police college.

Policy and system process from other leading forces.
The data capture will provide an opportunity to evaluate the current position following the
recommendations in November 2008 when the force was inspected in relation to the
management of data following critical incidents and the structure and changes which are now
in place compared to other forces and The College of Policing.
The qualitative data capture will be taken from the following:

Unstructured and semi-structured interviews with Senior Leaders from West Midlands
Police to gain their personal perception and understanding on Organisational Learning
and Knowledge Management.
The interviews will be semi-structured and conducted by a trained interviewer. The Senior
Leaders will be able to share their own personal experiences and reflect on their practical
application across their areas of business. There will be a limited number of closed questions
29
which will constitute a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, but the majority will provide more detailed
responses which can be probed and progressed. “Freedom to allow the respondents to talk
about what is of central significance to them rather than to the interviewer is clearly important,
but some flexible structure to ensure all topics considered crucial to the study are covered
does eliminate some of the problems of entirely unstructured interviews” (Bell, Waters
2014:182). It is suggested that the responses will be fairly easy to record and summarise with
the control of a semi structured interview.
The use of secondary data taken from academics in the fields of organisational learning and
knowledge management will also contribute to the investigation and findings of this research
and provide the researcher with a foundation of knowledge to support the interviewing
structure.
The research was aimed at the most influential members of the West Midlands Police, 17
Chief Superintendents and 5 civilian managers who have responsibility for Local Policing units
and departments. In order to capture a wide range of knowledge, expertise and diversity, the
sample was taken from this group. Requests for interview were sent to 10 Senior Leaders
with the intention of confirming 6 appointments.
The considered validity and reliability was a contributing factor to the interview schedule and
also the sample of invites. An interview pilot of two Superintendents took place to show that
the same understanding of the questions was being conducted. Minor changes were made
to enhance the understanding and validity. The reliability was subject to the data collection
and the interviewees. Both of which are embedded into the organisation and had credibility
to the research project.
The limitations of this research were restricted due to the time factor and the geographical
locations of the Senior Leaders who were spread across the West Midlands Region. The
30
retrieval of the documentary evidence was also a key part of the research, with the department
lead changing the original officers from 2008 where a large sample who needed to be
consulted. As Senior Leaders this would enable the researcher to maximise the strategic
perspective and networking for any proposed findings but would also restrict information from
practitioners who currently work in the field. This may have a ‘snowball effect’ so that the
researcher needed to remain focused on the aims and objectives and not widen the research.
3.4 Measures
The measures in place for the qualitative and quantitative data have been reviewed and
analysed.
The appropriate measures are in place to protect the personal identify of the
respondents and to minimise any ‘snow ball’ effects and recommendations made to progress
the research project further. The challenge will be to remain focused and stay within the
parameters. “The parameters of interest in a research study must be kept in view, while
deciding the size of the sample. Costings dictate the size of the sample that we can draw. As
such, budgetary constraint must invariably be taken into consideration when we decide the
sample size” (Kothari 2004:56).
3.5 Combining the measures
The data from the quantitative research will demonstrate the current formal and informal
debriefing process and how it provides organisational learning, or does not.
How do the organisational learn and change to improve for the future? These findings will
reflect the current positon with in force compared to the national perspective and other leading
forces. The qualitative data taken from the semi-structured interviews with Senior Leaders
will provide a balance to the research findings and highlight the perceptions and thought
processes of Senior Leaders and their current focus and prioritisation and their predictions
and aspirations for the future. “Qualitative multivariate analysis is a method that allows
31
consumers to voice their needs and wants without any interference from researchers’
preconceptions; consequently, it allows researchers to listen, observe and discover real
consumer insights” (Beckley, Lopetcharat, Paredes 2012:120).
3.6 Population
The population for this study is a selection of Senior Leaders who are all employees of West
Midlands Police.
A cross sample of Senior Leaders have been taken from across the
geographical area of the force and specialist department leads.
3.7 Sample
The sampling study was a minimal part of this research and was used to test the effectiveness
of the semi-structured interview questions.
The results of the pilot study provided the
researcher with a time line required to complete each interview. This needed to be for a
required time slot which Senior Leaders would agree to be included in their busy schedules.
The interview content saw minimal changes but gave the researcher an opportunity to focus
on a number of key areas.
3.8 Reliability and Validation
A “triangulation” of data sources helps to construct and support reliability of findings. The three
data sources allow cross-checking data for accuracy and established reliability of findings. In
addition, consumer preference segmentation can be done also” (Beckley et al 2012:130).
A structured interview can often lead respondents to offer very different answers to the same
question. It is common place to observe respondents having different perspectives (Foddy
1993).
32
The data will be collected by the researcher who will facilitate all of the interviews, and collate
all of the quantitative data through force leads and national contacts from the national
debriefing conference 2014.
3.9 Research Limitations and Constraints

The time and resource constraints limited the number of Senior Leaders available to
take part in the research project.

More time and resources would have seen a force questionnaire available for the force
to provide their perspective and compare with the Senior Leaders in the organisation.

The wider police family may have provided a different perspective and would have
provided a comparison with other emergency services and partners.

Time and resources limited the amount of other forces which could be included the
research becoming limited to the national influence from the College of Policing and a
leading example from Devon and Cornwall.

The aims and objectives have remained stable with organisational learning initially
being the priority. Findings have found that more emphasis needs to be placed on the
Knowledge Management concept; Senior Leaders focus on the learning and are less
resilient to manage the knowledge taken from that learning.
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1 Testing Relevance
The first part of the interviewer requests were sent out to ten Senior Leaders via email on 12th
May 2015 with the intention of all interviews being completed by 8th June 2015. The aim was
to complete six interviews from a cross sample of the organisation.
The second part of the research was the internal and external data collection. These requests
were more time consuming due to a number of internal and external process and personnel
33
changes. The contacts were made and the requests were sent on the 12th May 2015 with the
intention of collating all the data physically and electronically by 8th June 2015.
4.2 Respondents sample

Senior Leader Local Policing

Senior Leader Firearms Command

Senior Leader Learning and Development

Senior Leader Counter Terrorist unit

Senior Leader Force Criminal Investigations

Senior Leader Public Protection unit
4.3 Perceptions of the current informal and formal debriefing process
Senior Leaders were asked for their perception on the current formal and informal debriefing
process. The respondents gave a number of responses which have been categorised to:
leadership, resourcing, process management, organisational learning and knowledge
management.
Leadership

There was an overwhelming emphasis on the lack of Chief Officer’s support across all
of the departments with the exception of the Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU).
Suggesting a potential knock on effect towards Senior Leaders who did not make
formal and informal debriefing a fundamental part of their daily business.
Resourcing

The CTU have three dedicated full time staff who form part of the Organisational
Learning Department. Other Senior Leaders felt that there was little focus in this area
34
of business therefore staff were not dedicated to this concept and the force did not
allow time to put things right before moving on to the next job. It was suggested that
everyone was too busy to stop, debrief and learn although WMP had invested time in
training a cadre of officers to be available and be deployed.
Process Management

Findings suggested that the current system lacks consistency, is time consuming and
is focused towards the ‘big job’. There is some good practical application but limited
documentary evidence to show this. There are no governance linking operation orders
and other learning. The process which is in place following a critical incident is robust,
however its time consuming and usually conducted after a period of time has lapsed
and does not get sent back to a central point for everyone to share and learn which is
suggested is due to lack of policy and reinforcement.
Organisational Learning

In its simplistic terms research suggests that it is not about the level of training the
debriefing personnel have it’s the process management or lack of it that instigates a
debrief and then the follow up process of it to capture the learning. Once again CTU
will describe a process which is fit for purpose and embedded into their culture. It is
confined to a small team who manage the learning process. It has been suggested
that a minimum standard of competence should be established prior to any new
recruitments. New roles will start the flood of debriefing and making the process the
norm.
Knowledge Management
35

Defining the meaning of knowledge management within organisations “define” the
research suggests that within WMP learning is not linked to organisational
performance and there is no mechanism to monitor the effectiveness. We debrief and
move on, the findings state that turning the tacit knowledge into the explicit will create
learning. CTU have a process in place which captures the learning and then shares
via the national network and is driven by Senior Commanders on a national level.

Firearms Command also have a system in place which captures the information and
then tasks out the lessons learned for the necessary changes to be made. It is
suggested that both CTU and Firearms Command complete this process of effectively
sharing the knowledge management due to the consequences of making mistakes in
these areas of expertise and the potential consequences and liability if the police
service make the same mistakes again which have already been discussed and
documented.

Crime in action offences such as kidnap and extortion rely on forensic technology and
learning from the previous experiences. It is suggested that in the forensic strands
learning is not always shared as when it is dynamic and task focused and involves
serious threat risk and harm. The findings state that officers and staff sometimes find
their way through practical experience and not sharing knowledge with others. This
however is a continued cycle which could save time and resources.
4.4 The main priorities in relation to organisational learning
Senior Leaders were asked to focus on their areas of business and their priorities in relation
to organisational learning:
Local Policing

Capture lessons inside and outside of departments.
36

Looking backwards and completing operation download.

Take learning from internal and externally.

Need organisational learning board link cold case reviews.
Firearms Command

Silver Commanders responsible for debriefing, learning the lessons through firearms
and public order cadre.

Siege Commander always hold structured and constructive debriefs with clear
ownership, delivery change programme for policy. There is still lack of ownership
because we move onto the next job and don’t always share all the learning.

Use of electronic debriefing systems to capture data and produce timely reports.
Learning and Development

Look at the learning in pockets: different groups doing different things.

Look at the culture of learning and debriefing.

Look at why serious case reviews are not fed back into Learning and Development to
take forward.

Look the disjointedness of learning

Same themes come up again – need categorised debriefing inward/outward facing.

Need a dynamic problem solving team to link into Senior Commanders Meetings then
out to a tasking group to action.

Focus on learning and innovation.

Need it to be organic not a closed system.
Counter Terrorist unit

To take action with recommendations made.

Leadership, supporting and listening.

Respond and move forward and engage next time (close the loop of learning).
37

Pre-plan job and be able to pull off the shelf the last similar experience. What worked
and what did not available to everyone, ‘Library of data’.
Force Criminal Investigations

Challenging people encourage and motivate a culture which wants to learn.

As a leader never close down a meeting without clarity and understanding.

A different concept and not something added on to the day job.

Recognise the learning and development requirements – no just about training and
believe in it.

Focus on the values, listen and learn and decide what is next.

Take people out of their comfort zone, they make them selves self-sufficient.

Share life skills.

Development plans are seen as negative, learning is negative – need this to change.

Know your gap, everyone as a gap of learning. What is it? Build into development
review.

Surveillance does a 5 hour job and debrief for 1.5 hours learn from this.
Public Protection unit

Identification of threat, risk and harm and capture this.

What could happen? Know the triggers.

Deploy debriefing before a situation becomes critical.

Environmental scanning – what next?

Scanning and use experience from the team, coaches and mentors.

Have a process in place to move forward.

Have a virtual learning tool that captures the learning.

Business culture is to initiate ideas, change and move forward – Police to focus.

Library of data.

Require consistency – daily executive summary every day.
38

Look at CTU who are self-contained learn from their systems.

Communications: Team talk, website.

Process of debriefing needs to be more confined.
4.5 Senior Leaders accounting for their staffs perceptions
Is this a true perspective or is it in line with the thinking process of the workforce? These
findings reflect the download of six Senior Leaders asking them about their team’s
perspectives on organisational debriefing and learning.
Local Policing

Not fit for purpose.

Localised practices.

Managers good at local hot debriefs.

No formal process – officers are run over learning not recorded.

We do it, but don’t record it and no one learns.
Firearms Command

Poor briefing and debriefing but the system in place works.

Not learning from live intelligence at all times of the day or night.

Debriefing needs a role profile and investment.
Learning and Development

Continue to make mistakes.

Lack ownership, innovation and direction.
Counter Terrorist unit

No buy in from Command Team WMP.

Investment from the CTU network.

A transparent process with outcomes and changes.
39

Confidence in a system which adds value.

A change in debriefing culture which felt like ‘big brother’ at the start.

Promote ‘Orange Wednesday. Two hours per month of shared learning.
Force Criminal Investigations

None existent.

Briefings very good no balance with debriefing.
Public Protection unit

Not cited and not sure what is in place or accredited.
4.6 Organisational learning and knowledge management
Senior Leaders were asked to share experiences within West Midlands police. Organisational
learning and knowledge management have formed part of the end process and have impacted
on change. The findings suggested that limited organisational learning is currently taking
place and two out of six senior leaders used the example of large scale dynamic operation
which was over a year old when the debrief took place. Two others could not think of an
example with the other two providing details of current organisational debriefs from a preplanned firearms operation and a debrief which had been instigated due to the continued risk
around Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE). This debrief was subject to environmental scanning
and predicting the future vulnerabilities.
4.7 Current debriefing process
Senior Leaders were asked to clarify their thoughts around the current debriefing process and
how they would make improvements.
Local Policing

Nothing formally in place with limited support.
40

Need to be more corporate.
Firearms Command

Sporadic, good in pockets but not good enough.

Needs a training and development template attached to it.

What gets measured gets done.

Service improvement on Local Policing Units needs to dip sample operational orders,
debriefs, warrant debriefs to drive this forward.

Needs a link back into a central knowledge management base?

Link to risk register.

Led by Deputy Chief Constable.

Needs to include wider learning of non-police functions.
Learning and Development

Not fit for purpose.
Counter Terrorist unit

CTU have a process and culture that puts learning into practice.

Learning outcomes are linked to case reviews, PSD and all other departments.

Find trends; nip it in the bud early, needs to feel different.

Included in the staff survey to drive culture.

Link to providing the best service by learning and knowledge management.
Force Criminal Investigations

All in one place.

No knowledge of ownership in force.

Linked to Independents Police Complaints Commission.

Needs ACC lead to drive it forward.
41
Public Protection

Needs a plan and command structure with deliverables.

Change culture to be a debriefing organisation.

Needs a formal mechanism.

Review best practice elsewhere to share and learn.
4.8 Break down in organisational learning
Senior Leaders were asked to provide examples of when their teams have made the same
mistakes again through lack of organisational learning.
All six described a number of situations where mistakes had been repeated. There were a
number of significant examples provided which highlight risk and vulnerability for the
reputation of the force. Lessons have been learned from domestic homicide and safety of
individuals and the general public.
A number of less risk adverse examples were also provided which come at a financial burden
for the force. For example the amount of empty seats on courses, some of which had been
allocated to persons on maternity leave.
One Senior Leader had recently tested the level of competency by commission a piece of work
to a charitable organisation to provide the force with an insight on how we deal with victims of
sexual abuse. These findings are yet to be published.
4.9 Barriers to organisational learning and knowledge management
Senior Leaders were asked about the barriers within West Midlands Police which restrict and
confine organisational learning and knowledge management. All six leaders stated that there
were similar barriers with culture, organisational structure and leadership being the top three.
The barriers suggested are listed below:
42

Culture.

Organisational structure.

Leadership.

Austerity.

Multiagency joint working.

Process management.

System Control.

Barriers to change.

Silo working.

Investment in resources.

Acknowledging the business value.
4.10 Making best use of organisational learning and knowledge management
Senior leaders were asked if they would like to suggest anything further which would affect
the way in which West Midlands Police could make marginal gains by debriefing and improving
how we do activities, making best use of knowledge management.
Local Policing

More academic research.

More consistency.

Systems.

Learn from this research.

Allocate money and time.

Remote access.

Policy that is fit for purpose.
43

IT that supports what we are trying to achieve.

Linked to WMP 2020 in the format of organisational learning and knowledge
management.

View other debriefing processes for private industry such as airlines.
Firearms Command

Create a positive culture.

Look at the firearms unit and learn from their practices.
Learning and Development

Work with WMP 2020, use as a platform to move forward.

Make best use of social networking.

Reflect the College of Policing, Learning Management System.

Use virtual chat rooms.

Create a virtual learning site.
Counter Terrorist unit

Focus on the people and work smarter.

Better use of technology.

Build a quick and easy debriefing technological system.

Link smart phones to collate dynamic debriefing.

Use of technology develop a debrief app which collates feedback and learning.
Force Criminal Investigations

EDRs make them work (What are gaps outside of courses)?

Application forms linked to organisational learning.

Focus on the quick wins, for example EDL march for 6 hours record the learning at the
time.
44
Public Protection unit

To make marginal gains is essential, ask the consumer.

Areas of telecoms and forensics – do we move on with science?

What matters, warmth, empathy and care? Not process and tasks (humanise the
service).

Environmental scanning; what are today’s issues which are tomorrows serious
complaints and police failures?
4.11 External review of critical incident debriefing and management of data
Her Majesty Inspectorate of Constabulary completed a review November 2008 when they
reviewed the way in which West Midlands Police dealt with critical incidents. This review
incorporated the structured debriefing process. It was suggested that “whilst there was a
debriefing model in place and inspectors are expected to conduct such debriefs following
deployment, other than for pre-planned operations these can be ad hoc and ineffective. The
hot debrief section of operational orders are routinely not completed and thus opportunities to
learn and develop are lost. Officers did not believe that debriefing was effective and comments
such as ‘there is no apparent organisational learning as far as I’m concerned’ and there’s a
major need for more debriefs so that learning can be disseminated force-wide’ were
widespread” (HMIC report WMP 2008).
West Midlands Police developed a new policy and procedure for debriefing. It was approved
in September 2011 by Senior Commanders and Operational Planning.
Facilitators and
managers were debriefed before handing the responsibility over to the Organisational Service
Development Team in 2012, where the last review of the policy and procedure took place.
During this time period a number of facilitators were trained to conduct debriefs and the policy
was supported by an action development board and support from Assistant Chief Constable
Level.
45
Between 2012 and 2015 West Midlands Police have faced austerity and change has
influenced the structure of the force. This area of expertise is now with Force Intelligence and
provided a number of debrief finding and current policy on the intranet web page. The findings
show a total of 23 reports ranging from 2009 to 2013. The current policy was not reviewed in
March 2013 and is out of date.
The policy refers to the Assistant Chief Constable of
Operations being the corporate lead for debriefing within West Midlands and their Staff Officer
would form part of a quarterly meeting with representations from the force departments which
reviewed and coordinated actions which had been identified through the use of WMP
debriefing. The policy also suggests that there is a three tier approach to debriefing, hot
debriefing at the time, formal debriefing which follows an operational order and the structured
debrief.
4.12 Historic and current debriefs with recommendations
Research will show that there are a number of debriefs available from West Midlands Police
and a number of recommendations are made through a formal structured debriefing process.
There is no sequential process to audit the recommendations. It is left to the individual who
requested the debrief. The 2012 policy suggests that findings are presented to a decision
making board to promote organisational learning. There is no evidence of this taking place
nor is there any suggestion that a member of the Command Team is responsible debriefing
through their portfolio responsibilities.
4.13 Knowledge management from critical incident debriefs
Research shows that structured debriefs are still taking place within West Midlands Police
however since the progression which was made between 2008 and 2012 the force as seen a
decline in the amount of debriefs conducted and the lack of formal ownership and structure to
learn from the recommendations. Turning the tacit knowledge into the explicit (Nonaka,
Takeuchi 1995) is only the first stage to organisational learning and the second stage of the
management of that knowledge is even more limited. West Midlands Police have over 10,000
46
personnel who take part in new experiences on every working day. Why do we not feel it is
essential to capture this knowledge and share it with others in times of austerity and beyond?
4.14 WMP 2008-2015 organisational learning and knowledge management
The Counter Terrorist Unit has been driven by catastrophic events over the last decade and
has continued to value knowledge management and intrinsically embedded organisational
learning into their daily activities. There is a process and policy in place which is controlled by
a team of dedicated officers who identify and establish strands of organisational learning. The
Command Structure through the national network sees accountability and a different learning
culture. It has been suggested that the Counter Terrorist unit are driven by serious risk and
harm to our communities and the consequences of not learning and moving forward could
have a global impact. Senior Leaders make time to listen, learn and focus on the corporate
memory of sharing and improving.
In contrast the other areas of West Midlands Police are very limited. Specialist departments
such as firearms, surveillance and negotiators brief and debrief as part of their daily business.
Other departments and Local Policing units portray different levels of organisational learning
and debriefing, using different systems and processes driven through leadership.
4.15 National position from College of Policing
The College of Policing have a dedicated team who have professionalised structured
debriefing and organisational learning. They can be deployed to any force at their request
and will facilitate structured debriefs and provide a written report.
In isolation this is a
professional service which can assist with the ‘big jobs’ and provide an independent list of
recommendations. The College of Policing do not have any influence on the management of
those recommendations other than holding annual national conferences which provide best
examples for others to learn. Devon and Cornwall presented best practice at the 2014
conference and their approach to organisational learning and knowledge management.
47
4.16 Comparison force
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary are focused on their internal debriefing process being a
circular process which ensures that previous debrief information is not lost and contributes to
the findings of the next debrief or the planning of a like event (Devon and Cornwall debriefing
guidance 2012). Devon and Cornwall use a debrief auto-survey tool which allows consistent
debriefing to take place for all events which gathered both quantitative and qualitative data.
Research shows that they have a dedicated individual who manages the organisational
learning process through debriefing. The debriefing process is divided into pre-planned events
and spontaneous incidents which go through a customised process ranking them low, medium
or high risk. The debrief will then be categorised depending on the learning which needs to
take place. Does it require an automated survey or a full structured debrief? The manager
will review this process and a decision will be made and recorded with full rational. All debriefs
are recorded on an internal shared drive and findings are logged onto the tracker. This forms
part of a decision making forum which drives the actions forward with tight deadlines from the
time of the event to the actions being completed. All recommendations from all levels of
debriefs are forwarded to the facilitation manager and recorded on the internal debriefing
tracker differentiating between crime and operations. All of the actions will be tagged to an
officer not below the rank of Superintendent.
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
5.1 Discussion
The study looked at ‘Organisational Learning’ and how to make marginal gains by debriefing
and improving how we do activities next time.
Looking at the concept of knowledge
management and making best use of it.
In order to validate, it was important to understand the concept of ‘Organisational Learning’
within the police service and how can we best turn the tacit knowledge into the explicit
48
(Nonaka, Takeuchi 1995), and share the findings of the reality. Are Senior Leaders within the
organisational conscious to the lack of investment or is their perception aligned with the
reality? The qualitative and quantitate data worked in partnership and showed validity by
researching similar findings.
As predicted the research showed how the effectiveness of a current formal and informal
debriefing process can provide organisational learning. The Counter Terrorism unit and
Firearms Command gave the researcher live examples of good practice. In comparison the
lack of structure and command in other areas showed a real variance and highlighted areas
of procedure which could immediately benefit from a change in policy. The beacon status of
Devon and Cornwall showed that a model which is aligned to policing can work alongside preplanned and dynamic calls for service. Learning can be recorded in a number of different
ways, recorded and shared.
There were similar findings from CTU and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary both highlighted
good practices and beacon status. The College of Policing are currently reviewing their policy
which remained an important part of operational policing from a national perspective.
Identifying the added value through debriefing and the management of knowledge, they are
however limited in their desire to influence the way in which the police forces across the
country take the next step from debriefing and manage their data, impact on organisational
learning from experience and change practices and policy.
Local Policing units, Public
Protection, Force Criminal Investigations and Learning and Development all felt that
improvements could be made.
The data showed there were a number of different stages to knowledge management with the
initial focus on sharing and learning and creating the knowledge by enabling organisations to
learn and creating innovation and organisational advantage (Nonaka 1991). The process of
learning is then the next stage, looking at the debriefing and learning cycle and why the
contextual and relational aspects of knowledge are a difficult concept to share (Nonaka,
49
Takeuchi 1995). What is the analysis and the importance of the choices we now make? How
do we move forward after turning the task knowledge or the tacit knowledge into the explicit
knowledge and beyond? How it is best managed to maximise its value? (Machina 1987).
What are the conflict and bargaining stages where strategic actions turn into choices? What
is the power of exchange or the conflict and restriction? (Pfetter 1981). The final stage reflects
the choices of the organisation and other influences. Why is there such a distinctive different
between two area of business? What are the influences? The environment, the culture, the
economic climate are all examples which influence the final process (Grandori, Scott 1987).
The impact of West Midlands Police not processing and managing their data taken from
organisational learning could have a significant impact on the management of police resources
and public liability over the next decade. By continuing to make the same mistakes and not
accepting that a learning environment is a dynamic, innovative way of thinking could have
significant consequences in times of current and future financial restraints with a reduction in
police resources.
The choice of research using the mixed method concept has provided the human perception
side of the research, as this was taken from the accounts of the Senior Leaders and was
supported by the findings of the data retrieval. Both of which support the findings and provide
the researcher with overwhelming evidence of a number of areas which can be improved and
developed if the appropriate time and investment if supported.
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introductions
This section summarises the findings taken from the research and provides recommendations
based on the research of the Senior Leaders perceptions combined with a review of the
50
journey West Midlands Police have taken since the review of critical incident debriefing in
November 2008 by Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Suggestions for future research will be discussed in this chapter, not all of which have been
completed during this project due to time restraints and minimal resources.
During the research the public and private sector show enormous differences. The studies
which were conducted on BP International, focused on the organisations learning and finding
technological solutions to share the knowledge across an international sphere.
This compared to the public sector and highlights a completely different ethos. The public
sector has a very task focused bias and aim to deliver and do a purposeful job. However this
is to the detriment of taking a step back thinking ahead and driving the sharing of that
knowledge for others to benefit. Van den Hooff will state that if you are proud of your findings
you will be more likely to want to share (Van den Hooff 2012).
6.2 Findings from the study
The breadth of this research seeks to achieve a truthful perspective of the standard of
organisational learning and knowledge management taken from lessons learned through
formal and informal debriefing. Using primary and secondary data the research project as
provided a comparison of Senior Leaders perceptions compared to reality and the academic
research as provided theory and hypothetical suggestions.

The tacit knowledge which a person owns is a difficult concept to extract and change into
explicit knowledge which is tangible and can be shared. This journey continues when the
knowledge needs to be managed and shared with an appropriate system, a technological
solution or indeed a ‘Knowledge Manager’ (Nonaka, Takeuch 1995).
51

The significant advantage of organisational learning includes growth and change, this
however is a process which needs investment and takes time. Organisations can seek to
analysis the findings and success far too early in the transitional process and find that no
benefits accomplished. There is no quick solution but a long term investment will see
organisations seek rewards (Burgoyne 1999).

The force have identified the value of debriefing in 2008 and showed evidence of
significant change in 2012. Austerity has seen the analytical process of this data during
debriefs decline, with fewer being conducted and no current policy to drive and support
the next stage of the information exchange (Machina 1987).

‘Do less with more’ is embraced within organisational learning by Innes who conducted a
study on neighbourhood policing. He suggested that organisations need to work smarter
and move away from the notion of ‘doing more with less’. He will argue that by working
smarter with technological solutions and smarter thinking fewer actions can be completed
if the ones completed are meaningful and effective (Innes 2014).

The ‘conscious competence learning model’ was driven by Burch in 1970 when the
concept of knowing if you are competent or not, is a significant part of knowledge
management and learning (Burch 1970). During the research it was a significant part of
the findings that Senior Leaders where conscious about the incompetence of
organisational learning in a number of areas. Findings also suggested that their belief was
that their staff agreed with this incompetence.

Garvin suggests that a successful organisation is a learning organisation and closely
linked to knowledge management. Those who do not invest in organisational learning are
left behind and keep making the same mistakes which is inefficient and costly (Garvin
1998).

The process of unlearning and moving on is also part of a learning organisation. Data
management and moving out the old to bring in the new. This concept is completed in our
52
subconscious during an update in legislation or new policy. Organisations who fail to
unlearn and manage this data can be overwhelmed and get lost in out of date policy and
historic processes (Lee 2011, Zahra et al 2011).
6.3 Recommendations
The aim of this project was to share the recommendations with Senior Leaders from West
Midlands Police and identify areas for improvement.
1) Command team support and ownership. Evidence from other forces show that if The
Deputy Chief Constable is responsible for the organisational learning and knowledge
management programmes it provides more accountability across all of the business areas.
2) Accountability for change. If underpinned at a strategic level by an organisation learning
and knowledge management board, it will monitor the changes which have been
highlighted.
3) A process which is fit for purpose and is embedded into the fourth pillar which is one of the
four strand of the WMP Operational Strategy for the WMP2020 programme ‘Ready to
Learn and adapt’.
4) A process which is clearly defined and aligned to the level of risk which is balanced with
the amount of time, the varied levels of debriefing takes to achieve the aims, and
objectives.
5) Encourage horizon scanning across the policing network with outside partners and
communities in order to predict any emerging demands before they occur.
The
management of a particular Child Sexual Exploitation victim who is resource intensive and
exceedingly vulnerable is just one example.
53
6) Continuity and committed dedicated resources who can drive the programme forward,
Counter Terrorist unit provides a real commitment to organisational learning and sharing
of knowledge on a local and national level.
7) A change in culture? Driven from the Command Team down, which embraces a learning
environment with a clear concept of sharing and improving.
8) Force investment in awareness training for all Sergeants and Inspectors, by utilising the
‘Supervisors Training Days’, sharing updated policy and procedures to change the
organisation. Starting with the process of sharing and learning.
9) A knowledge manager within the force who is responsible for maintaining the learning
tracker which manages live actions from organisational learning debriefs. Devon and
Cornwall Police track their actions in two separate systems for Crime and Operations.
10) A data warehouse which records the organisational memory and knowledge management
data. Devon and Cornwall use the skills of a trained analyst who now holds a Senior
Leadership post in emergency management to manage this process.
11) Technological support to manage incoming data, interactive feedback. Consider the use
of new hand held devices that are mobile and investment in line with WMP2020.
12) Encourage West Midlands Police to design a learning and development virtual network
which can be organic and share timely learning. College of Policing manage a system
called POLKA which is a similar model and could be used.
54
13) Learn from good practices of Counter Terrorist unit, the leadership, the team, the process
and the learning cycle. The culture of learning is part of their daily business.
14) Learn from good practice of Devon and Cornwall, the leadership, the process, alterative
timely electronic debriefing and the tracker spread sheet.
6.3 Recommendations for Future Research
This project only gives a small ‘snapshot’ into areas of improvement. Further investigations
into the following areas and a bigger sample was will provide a more comprehensive analysis
of the effectiveness of ‘Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management’.

The journey of learning from the incident to the change programme.

Time lapse between the completion of organisational learning and the effectiveness of
knowledge management.

The effectiveness of the current policy, review all critical incidents for evidence of
debriefing and learning.

Organisational Learning captured through corruption and incompetence.

The comparison of learning and knowledge management across all emergency
services.

The comparison of public and private organisational learning and knowledge
management.

The effectiveness of unlearning in the police service.
55

Driving or being driven? Who drives organisation learning and why?

What type of leader invests in organisational learning and knowledge management?
REFERENCES:
Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorethy E.(1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges,
and benefits” (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm)
Aldridge, A. and Levine, K. (2001) Surveying the Social World: Principles and Practice in Survey
Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Beckley, JH, Lopetcharat, K, & Paredes, MD 2012, Product Innovation Toolbox : A Field Guide
to
Consumer Understanding and Research, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA. Available
from: ProQuest ebrary. [18 June 2015]. p120, p130
Bell, J. and Waters, S. (2014) ‘Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers, United
Kingdom, Open University press. P12
Benbasat, Izak; Zmud, Robert (1999). “Empirical research in information systems: The practice of
relevance”. MIS Quarterly 23.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon.
Bogner, W., Bansall , P. (2007) ‘Knowledge Management as the Basis of Sustained High
Performance’, Journal of Management Studies, 44/1: 165-88
Bontis, Nick; Choo, Chun Wie (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and
Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press
Brewer, J.D. (2000) Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press.
56
Buchanan,D., Huczynski,A, 2004, Organisational Behaviour, An introductory Text, fifth edition, UK,
Prentice Hall International Press
Burrell, G and Morgan, G., 1979, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Heinemann,
London
Burgoyne, J., 1999, ‘Design of the times’, People Management, vol. 5, no.11, 3 June, pp. 38-44
Cannon, M., and Edmondson, A. (2005) ‘Failing to Learn and Learning to Fail (Intelligently): How
Great Organizations Put Failure to Work to Innovate and Improve’, Long-range Planning,
38/3: 299-319.
Carrington, L., 2002, ‘Oiling the wheels’, People Management, vol.8, no. 13, 27 June p31-34
Coakes, E., Amar, A., and Grandos, M. (2010) ‘Knowledge Management, Strategy, and Technology:
A Global Snapshot’, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23/3: 282-304.
Crocker, L., Algina, J. (1986), Introduction to classical and modern test theory.
RineHart, and Winston.
Toronto: Holt,
Collison, C. Parcell, G., (2004), Learning to fly: Practical Knowledge Management from Leading and
Learning Organisations. UK: Capstone Press
Crego, J (2015) www.hydrafoundation.org, 9 Feb 2015
Crego, J (2014) www.i-psy.com, 2 Aug 2014
Davenport, Thomas H. (1994) “Saving IT’s Soul: Human Centred Information Management”. Harvard
Business Review 72 (2) 119-131.
Denscombe, Martyn. Good Research Guide : For small-scale social research projects (4th Edition).
Berkshire, GBR: McGraw-Hill Education, 2010. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 17 June 2015.
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Debriefing Guidance, July 2012
Foddy, W., (1993) Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires, Theory and
Practice in Social Research, UK: Cambridge Press
Garvin, D. (1998) Building a learning organisation: Harvard Business Review on knowledge
management. p.49
Gottschalk, P., (2009), Knowledge Management in Police Oversight, Florida, Brown Walker
Press
Griffiths, D., and Moon, B. (2011) “The State of Knowledge Management: A Survey suggests Ways
to Attain More Satisfied Users,’ KM World, Http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/PrintArticle.
Hayes, M., Walsham, G. (2003). “Knowledge sharing and ICTs: A relational perspective”. In EasterbySmith, M., Lyles, M.A. The Blackwell Handbook of Organisational Learning and Knowledge
Management. Malden, Blackwell. p 55-77
Hecker, A. (2012) ‘Knowledge Beyond the Individual? Making Sense of a Notion of :
Knowledge in Organisation theory’, Organisation Studies, 33/3:423-45
57
Collective
H R Magazine (2009) ‘Leveraging HR and Knowledge Management in a Challenging Economy’, HR
Magazine (June).
Irny, S. Rose, A. (2005) “Designing a Strategic Information Systems Planning Methodology for
Malaysian Institutes of Higher Learning (isp- ipta), Issues in Information System, Volume VI,
No. 1, 2005.
Jaschke, H.G,. Bjorgo, T., Romero, F.de. B., Kwanten, C., Mawby, R and Pogan, M. (2007).
Perspectives of Police Science in Europe, Final Report, European Police Colllege,
CEPOL, College European de police , Hampshire, England.
Kleiner, A., Roth.,G, (1998) How to make experience your company’s best teacher: Harvard
Business Review on knowledge management. p.49
Kolb, D., Learning Styles http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm
Kothari, C 2004, Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, New Age International,
Daryaganj, Delhi, IND. Available from: ProQuest ebrary. [18 June 2015]. P.56
KPMG (2000) Knowledge Management Research Report (London: KPMG Consulting).
KPMG (2003) Insights from KPMG’s European Knowledge Management Survey 2002/2003
(Amstelveen: KPMG Knowledge Advisory Services, The Netherland).
Lee, L. (2011) ‘The effects of Challenge and Hindrance Stressors on Unlearning and NPD Success:
The Moderating role of team conflict’, African journal of Business Management, 5/5: 1843-56
Lee, P., (2010) Leadership and Trust: Their effects on knowledge sharing and team
performance’, Management Learning 41/4: 473-91
Martin, P. (2008) Changing the Leopard’s Spots, making organisations change successful, US,
Book Surge
McKinley, A,. Taylor, P,. (2000) Inside the factory of the future: Work, Power and Authority in
Microelectronics, Routledge, London.
Moser, C.A. and Kalton, G. (1971) Survey Methods in Social Investigation (2 nd edn). London:
Heinemann.
Nonaka, I., (1991) “The knowledge creating company”. Harvard Business Review 69 (6) 96-104.
Nonaka, Ikujiro, Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995) The knowledge creating company: how Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press
Nonaka, Ikujiro; von Krogh, Georg (2009). : “Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversation:
Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory”.
Organisation Science 20, 635-652
Nonaka et al. (2000) Leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation, Long Range
Planning, 33/1: 5-34
Punch, K.F. (2005), Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (2nd
edn). London, Sage
58
Rajan, A., Lank, E. and Chapple, K., 1999, Good Practices in Knowledge Creation and Exchange,
Focus/London Training and Enterprise Council, London.
Renzl, B. (2008) “Trust in Management and Knowledge Sharing: The mediating Effects of
Fear and Knowledge Documentation,’ Omega, 36: 206-20.
Sanz-Valle, R., Naranjo-Valencia, J., Jimenez-Jimenez, D., and Perex-Caballero, L. (2011) “Linking
Organizational Learning with Technical Innovation and Organizational Culture, Journal of
Knowledge Management, 15/6: 887-1015
Sapsford, R. and Jupp, V. (2006), Data Collection and Analysis (2 nd edition) London: Sage p.1.
Shipton, H. (2006) ‘Confusion or Cohesion? Towards a Typology for Organisational Learning
Research’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 8/4: 233-52
Van den Hooff, B., Schouten, A,. and Simonovski, S. (2012) ‘What one feels and what one
knows: The influence of emotion on attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing’.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 16/1: 148-158
Von Krough, G., (2012) Leadership in organisational knowledge: A Strategic Framework’:
Range Planning, 34/4 p421-39
West Midlands Police Operational Strategy WMP2020 (2015): 4 Pillars of our WMP2020 strategy
Wragg, E.C. (1980) Conducting and Analysing Interviews, Red guide 11. Nottingham: University of
Nottingham School Education, p.17.
WMP Protective Services HMIC Review, (2008) on critical incidents November 2008
WMP
intranet, Structured Debriefing, HQ Departments,
Development, http://intranet2/hq_departments/osd/strategic
Organisational
and
Service
Zahra, S, Abdelgawad, S., and Tsang, E. (2011) ‘Emerging Multinationals Venturing into Developed
Economies: Implications for Learning, Unlearning and Entrepreneurial Capability’, Journal of
Management Inquiry, 20/3: 323-30
Zietsma, C., “The War of the Woods: Facilitators and Impediments of Organisational Learning
Processes’, British Journal of Management, 13: 61-74
59
APPENDIX 1
Certificate of Ethical Approval
Applicant:
Jennifer McLelland
Project Title:
“Organisational Learning”. How do we make marginal gains by debriefing and improving how
we do activities, making best use of knowledge management?
This is to certify that the above named applicant has completed the Coventry University
Ethical Approval process and their project has been confirmed and approved as Medium
Risk
Date of approval:
29 April 2015
Project Reference Number:
P32984
60
APPENDIX 2
Interview Questions
“Organisational Learning”. How do we make marginal gains by debriefing and improving how we do
activities, making best use of knowledge management?
1. What is your role?
2. What is your rank?
3. Where do you work?
4. What is your area of responsibility?
5. What is your length of service?
6. What do you think about the formal/informal debriefing process on your Local Policing Unit (LPU)
or department?
7. In your role what do you feel your main priority is in relation to organisational learning?
8. How effective do you think it is to provide organisational learning?
9. What do you think your officers/staff think about the current briefing/debriefing process to
impact on organisational learning?
10. Tell me about the last debrief you were part of/aware of on your LPU/Department?
11. What was the result?
12. What changed as a result of the findings?
13. What are your thoughts about the current organisational formal and informal debriefing process?
14. How would you make improvements?
15. Have you ever had feedback from a supervisor/manager about an incident or process they have
dealt with where the same mistakes have been made again?
16. If Yes to question 15. What impact did this have on future organisational learning?
17. What is the biggest barrier to organisational learning and knowledge management?
18. If your people know that a pre-planned formal or informal debrief process taking place post
incident or operation, do you think it changes behaviours?
19. If yes/no why?
20. Is there anything else you would like to add in relation to “Organisational Learning” and how we
make marginal gains by debriefing and improving how we do activities, making best use of
knowledge management?
61
APPENDIX 3
Participant Information Sheet
1. Purpose
To understand the concept of “Organisational Learning” within WMP and utilise both data
retrieval and one to one interviews with Senior Officers within WMP to recommend ways to
make marginal gains by debriefing and improving how we do activities. Making best use of the
knowledge management to change the way we do things next time.
2. Why have I been chosen?
You represent WMP and are one of the Senior Leaders within the organisation. Your views
and opinions are an important part of the research project.
3. Do I have to take part?
No.
4. What do I have to do?
Answer a number of questions during an interview with Inspector Pearson
5. What are the risks associated with this project?
There is low risk and if any negative findings are made then it can only benefit the organisation
to make best use of the learning.
6. What are the benefits of taking part?
Be able to offer an opinion and contribute to the research project with experience.
7. Withdrawal options?
You can withdraw within 3 weeks.
8. Data protection & confidentiality
Your personal details will be stored confidentially.
9. What if things go wrong? Who to complain to?
“If you are unhappy with any aspect of this research, you should contact the Principal
Investigator, Susan Barnes (email aa8098@coventry.ac.uk) in the first instance. If you still
have any concerns and wish to make a formal complaint about the conduct of the research,
please write to:
Professor N.Berkeley, Associate Dean (Research), Coventry University, Priory Street,
Coventry, CV15FB. Email: n.berkeley@coventry.ac.uk.
10. What will happen with the results of the study?
The results will be made available to ACC Beale on completion of the study.
11. Who has reviewed this study?
Research Supervisor Susan Barnes Coventry University, Chief Superintendent Hyde WMP.
12. On Completion of any interview if there is anything further you would like to add or clarify
please contact the researcher:
Inspector 5827 Jennifer Pearson - Head of Investigations - Wolverhampton LPU
Email – jennifer.pearson@west–midlands.pnn.police.uk or Jennifermclelland@hotmail.com
Telephone: 07500 066030
62
West Midlands Police Command Structure 17.06.2014 – WMP Website
63
APPENDIX 4