Session 10(11/16): Learning & Problem-Solving
(
Session 10(11/16): Learning & Problem-solving
Pisano, G. P. (1996). Learning-before-doing in the development of new process technology. Research Policy, 25(7), 1097-1119.
Hyo Jung Lee
Graduate School of International Studies
International Management Program
[Introduction]
The purpose of this paper is to analyze different types of experiences related to learning, and get the implications ofthe differences for problem-solving strategies. Before this paper, where were several researches on the emerging of howand why learning-by-doing occurs, however, there were less papers about the type of conditions under different approaches when learning is most effective.The author developed the approaches on 'learning-before-doing.'
The author used data on 23 processdevelopment projects from biotechnologyand pharmaceuticals to find out the influence of different learning strategies on development performance. This paper especially focused on how thetiming of technology transfer to the factory influences development costs.
As a result, the authorexplained learning-by-doingis important for efficient development in biotechnology where underlying theoretical and practicalknowledge is relatively thin. However, the need for learning-by-doing is lower in chemical synthesiswhere underlying theoretical and practical knowledge is deep so thatthe design of laboratory experiments is possible.
[Summary]
The paper includes 5 sections. For the Section 1, the author indicated the purpose and background of the research thatexplored the impact of learning strategieson development performance. For the Section 2, the author proposed framework for analyzingthe selection among learning-by-doing and learning-before-doing problem-solving strategies.
Section3, the authordeveloped the framework to define the differencesin the structure of the knowledge bases such as theoretical and practical knowledge related to biotechnology and chemical process. For each technology, the appropriate learning strategies have to be adapted differently.
For Section 4, the author did the empiricalanalysis on data of 23 processdevelopment projects from biotechnologyand pharmaceuticals to look on the impact of learning strategies on developmentperformance.
As the dependent variable, process developmentcosts wereused. The dependent variable was measure as the total number of scientificand engineering person-hours required for all activities related to process research, development,scale-up, and transfer into the commercial plant. As the independent variable, thetiming of the process technology transfer to theplantwas used and the total length of projects varies importantly. It was essential to make a comparisonbetween the timing of thetransfer to the plant relative and the total processdevelopment lead time.
For additional variables, project complexity and content was used. A fair degree of heterogeneity inthe sample of projects was founded so that variables to control for thesedifferences and their influence on development productivity were included in the research. A dummy variable(CHEMICALS) is used to identify that theproject was chemical-based or not. For the additive dummy,the variable explained the differencesin the means of the productivity among chemical and biotechnology projects.
Lastly, for Section 5, the author raised the further questions on management of processdevelopment and learning.
[Main Contributions]
The key contribution of this paper is to develop the framework for analyzing the type of conditions under different approaches when learning is most effective. Other scholars studied about the way and the reason of learning-by-doing occurs, however, there were little researches on the type of conditions around the different approaches when learning isneeded.
Another contribution of this paper is the idea of development and manufacturing strategy. Firm’s trial to get core competencies is getting intensive but the performance of firm is not just like the initial planning itself. There are trials and errors between learning and doing of firms and this paper suggests the situation and contingency when learning-by-doing is absolutely needed or not.
Corporate management in the real world could execute strategies and establish corporate guideline for the processdevelopment and learning related to this paper.
[Critiques]
The author argued that learning-by-doingis important for industries where underlying theoretical and practicalknowledge is relatively thin but the need for learning-by-doing is lower in industrieswhere underlying theoretical and practical knowledge is deep.
However, this framework has thedichotomous way of thinking. Besides biotechnology and chemical industry, there are some areas that cannot be included to either side: underlying knowledge is thin or deep. Therefore, the criteria have to be added for evaluating which environment is adaptable for learning-by-doing.
Beyond theoretical and practicalknowledge, some other factors would be useful for developing the criteria on “when learning-by-doing is essential or not.”
1