Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

63

A Method and Tool to Promote Knowledge
Brokering in Cross-Boundary Learning for
Organizational Learning and Career
Development
Kota Isomura*
Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio
University, Kanagawa, Japan
Nobuyuki Kobayashi
The System Design and Management Research Institute of Graduate School of System
Design and Management, Keio University, Kanagawa, Japan
Seiko Shirasaka
Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University, Kanagawa,Japan
Makoto Ioki
Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University, Kanagawa,Japan

ABSTRACT
Workers who take classes outside their workplaces can advance their careers through theknowledge acquired in those classes. Additionally, organizations are also able to acquire
knowledge from outside the organization through working learners. However, there aresome problems such as weathering of experience and persecution when learners try toapply their newly gained knowledge. Although the effects and features of cross-boundary
learning have been proved by previous studies, a concrete and practical method forsolving the associated issues does not exist yet. This study thus analyzes knowledge
brokering in cross-boundary learning aimed at promoting organizational learning andcareer development. To solve these problems, the authors developed a method and a tool.
The method combines existing models, based on requirements such as "autonomously
learn and practice," "understand the different values between communities," and "practicelearning by his/her initiative." A tool to constantly review learners’ experiences supports
the execution of the method. As a result of a three-month experiment involving 49
working students of a graduate school, the authors confirmed that the use of the method
and tool promoted knowledge brokering in cross-boundary learning. The authors expectthat the method and tool will be utilized by individuals, graduate schools or companies.
Keywords: Cross-boundary learning, Knowledge brokering, Experiential learning, Job
crafting.
Received 25 October 2018 | Revised 2 February 2019 | Accepted 22 February 2019.

1. INTRODUCTION
Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

64

In enterprise management, incorporating new knowledge from outside the organization
into organizations is key for innovation (Tsai, 2001). For instance, organizations innovate
by utilizing new knowledge acquired by workers learning outside their respective
organizations. Studies have been carried out on key persons to incorporating external
information, personal connections, and knowledge into organizations. They are typicallycalled gatekeepers (Allen & Cohen, 1969) or structural hall (Burt, 1992). From theorganization's viewpoint, Matsuo (2009) defined organizational learning as: knowledge
gained by individuals and groups that is shared among groups and organizations, andinstitutionalized as routines or rejected, changes to knowledge, beliefs and actions oforganization members. Anatan (2013) proposed a framework for promoting knowledgetransfers between industry and university. That is, organizations require external
knowledge for innovation.
On the other hand, in terms of career development, it is important for individuals tospontaneously develop their careers under intense environmental changes (Hall, 2003).
The concept of such career development is called protean career (Hall, 2003) orboundaryless career (Arthur, 1994), both of which show an attitude not confined to
traditional organizational boundaries. In Japan, the main part of career development isbased on on-the-job-training, which is carried out in daily work. However, this has
become less functional in situations described by the above-cited studies. Individuals’
access to diversified growth opportunities outside the organization, rather thanorganization-led career development, is now required (Japan Ministry of Economy, Tradeand Industry, 2018). That is, knowledge from outside organizations is required for careerdevelopment.
From the above, both innovation and career development require knowledge from outsideorganizations. Under these circumstances, the authors focus on the importance of crossboundary learning. This is because, through cross-boundary learning, individuals canmake use of their experiences outside their organizations for advancing their careers.
Moreover, another reason is that organizations can also acquire various types of knowhow from outside the organization. Cross-boundary learning represents a series ofprocesses in which workers go back and forth beyond the boundaries between "thesituation they are in compliance" and "other circumstances" (Ishiyama, 2018b)." Thesituation in which they are in compliance represents a workplace where individuals
usually work , while other circumstances are, for example, side jobs, study groups, or
graduate school.
The process of cross-boundary learning involves the action of knowledge brokering,defined as "brokering and propagating the practice of one community to anothercommunity" (Wenger, 2000). For example, knowledge brokering is the action of taking
the skills or information learned at graduate school by workers back to their own
workplace and utilizing it for their jobs. In this way, knowledge brokering leads toorganizational learning and career development.
However, based on a qualitative survey of cross-boundary learners, Ishiyama (2013,2018b) pointed out that the weathering of experiences and persecution are hindrances tocross-boundary learning. The weathering of experience is a phenomenon in whichlearners no longer continue to be motivated to learn and gradually forget their experiences
Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

65

in ordinary workplace situations. Persecution is the resistance to other practices in theorganization, which happens when a cross-boundary learner tries to broker knowledge.
These problems represent a great opportunity loss for both organizations and individuals,
as they hinder organizational learning and career development.
Based on the above, this study aims to promote organizational learning and spontaneous
career development through cross-boundary learning. For this purpose, it proposes amethod to solve problems such as weathering of experiences and persecution and topromote knowledge brokering. Specifically, the method and tool allow cross-boundary
learners to constantly review their experiences and organize their thoughts.
Cross-boundary learning has been proven effective by previous studies. It enables
learners to establish their careers (Araki, 2007), have positive influence on their jobs
(Ishiyama, 2018a), and improve their abilities (Ishiyama, 2018b). It has also been
proposed that the experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1984) is progressing in crossboundary learning (Ishiyama, 2018b). Additionally, Ishiyama (2013) specified the
behavior of knowledge brokers. Although the effects and features of cross-boundary
learning are shown in these studies, concrete and practical methods for solving problems
such as the weathering of experiences and persecution have not been hitherto presented.
Furthermore, countermeasures for these problems have not been provided. In light of theabove, this study contributed to solving these two problems of cross-boundary learningand proposing a concrete and practical method to promote knowledge brokering.
This paper consists of five sections. The second section reviews previous relevant studies
and the third describes the requirements and contents of the proposed method. The fourth
section describes the procedures and results and discusses the survey on understandability,
usability, and effectiveness of the proposed method. The final section concludes the paper.

2. EXPLANATION OF BASE CONCEPTS
This chapter describes three concepts of previous studies that form the basis of the
proposal of this study.
The first concept is the experiential learning cycle model, which is a "process of making
lessons learned from experience through reflection" (Kolb, 1984). As shown in Figure 1,
experiential learning progresses by cycling through of four processes: concrete
experience, reflective observation, abstract hypothesis, and active testing.

Figure 1. Experiential learning cycle model (based on Kolb, 1984)
Ishiyama (2018b) presented the proposition that the experiential learning cycle isprogressing into cross-boundary learning. Figure 2 shows the application of theexperiential learning cycle to cross-boundary learning. The process of active testing
crosses the boundary of the community. That is, the learner plans active testing of
knowledge and lessons learned from the external community in to link to the internal
Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

66community. The same is true for cases where the internal and external communities areswapped.
This study uses the experiential learning cycle model as a process to learn and practiceautonomously, but it is necessary to improve the method of crossing community
boundaries in the experiential learning cycle.

Figure 2. Experiential learning process in cross-boundary learning
The second concept is the knowledge broker model, defined as the process of introducing
the practices of the external community to the internal community (Ishiyama, 2013). As
shown in Figure 3, knowledge broker model consists of processes such as acceptance ofvarious values, knot-working, integration of various values, action of knowledge
brokering, and change in the community. This study uses the knowledge brokering modelas the method to understand differences in community values, but it is necessary to moreclearly specify the method of examining the action of knowledge brokering.

Figure 3. Knowledge broker model (based on Ishiyama, 2013)
The third concept is the job crafting model, defined as the method of the physical andcognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work
(Wrzesniewski, 2001). As shown in Figure 4, by changing the boundaries of tasks andthe quality and quantity of human relations, ideas such as meaning of work and work
identity change. Then, changes in ideas also provide feedback for practices. This study
uses the job crafting model as the method to actively practice learning, but it is necessary
to improve the method of considering behaviors based on differences in community
values.
Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

67

Figure 4. Job crafting model (based on Wrzesniewski, 2001)

3. PROPOSAL OF METHOD AND TOOL
3.1 Overview
This section considers a concrete and practical method and tool to solve problems suchas weathering of experiences and persecution that inhibit cross-boundary learning. The
method and tool combine existing models based on requirements such as "autonomously
learn and practice," "understand the different values between communities," "practicelearning by his/her initiative." The authors subsequently present the requirements for the
proposal by clarifying what it should solve. The content of the proposal consists of threeelements: a process to satisfy the requirements, a method to support the process, and atool to support the method (Martin, 1994). After describing how to construct these, thesubsequent sections show concrete proposal contents in terms of process, method, andtool.
3.2 Requirements
As previously mentioned, phenomena such as weathering of experiences and persecution
hinder cross-boundary learning. The authors positioned these problems into the processof cross-boundary learning and clarified the requirements that the method and tool should
satisfy to solve them. Figure 5 shows the results of these considerations.

Figure 5. Problems in cross-boundary learning and requirements to solve themFirst, the authors position the problems into the process of cross-boundary learning. In
the process of cross-boundary learning, weathering of experiences can be interpreted as"cannot turn the process continuously.” Persecution can be interpreted as "resistance todifferent values of the community that arise in the active testing process."

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

68

Second, the authors specify the requirements the method and tool should satisfy to solve
the problems. Since the experiential learning cycle can be divided into abstract (reflective
observation and abstract hypothesis) and concrete processes (active testing and concrete
experience), the requirements are defined from the three perspectives of entire, abstract,and concrete processes. From the viewpoint of the entire process, the requirement is to“autonomously learn and practice.” This is because due to weathering of experiences,motivation decreases over time, which is caused by the inability to continuously turncross-boundary learning process throughout the process.
From the viewpoint of the abstract process, the requirement is to "understand thedifferent values between communities." This is because persecution is triggered byresistance from the members of the internal community in the active experiment process
due to learners’ lack of understanding of the different values in the internal and external
communities. From the viewpoint of the concrete process, the requirement is to "practicelearning by his/her initiative." This is because, as a common feature with weathering ofexperiences and persecution, it is not possible to change the work from the conventional
method in the active testing process unless learners know how to apply and implement
the learning by themselves. Even if learners understand the differences in the values ofcommunities, unless they can concretely plan and implement how to change the current
work, they cannot make a change.
3.3 Construction method
The authors believe that the three models mentioned in the second section are effective
to satisfy these three requirements. That is, the experiential learning cycle model meetsthe requirement to "autonomously learn and practice." The knowledge brokering model
meets the requirement to "understand the different values between communities." The job
crafting model meets the requirement to "practice learning by his/her initiative." What iscommon to the three models is that there are interactions between changes in the abstract(thought, idea) and concrete (behavior, experience) levels. Focusing on the similarity
between the elements of the three models, the authors integrated them as shown in Figure
6 and created the method and tool learners can utilize. Table 1 presents the overview ofthe proposed method and tool.

Figure 6. Integration of the three models

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

69

Table 1. Proposal contents

3.4 ProcessThis study positions the experiential learning cycle model as the process that a learning
person explicitly executes for knowledge brokering. This is because the learner can broker
knowledge between communities by using the experiential learning cycle alternately in
the internal and external communities.
3.5 Method
To support the experiential learning cycle, the method shows what should be considered
and in which order for each process. Figure 7 is the model diagram of the method
constructed by the authors with reference to the knowledge broker and job crafting models.

Figure 7. Method to promote knowledge brokering
The following shows the content of the method over the experiential learning cycle
process, that is, for practicing learning of the external community in the internal
community. The model diagrams in Figure 8 shows the correspondences between eachprocess and the elements of the method to be considered.
Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

70

Figure 8. Correspondences between processes and elements of the proposed
methodCopyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

71

In the concrete experience process, the learner specifically reviews his/her experiencefrom the viewpoints of behavior in the external community and human relations in theexternal community. In the reflective observation process, the learner reflects on theknowledge obtained from the experiences and sense of difference the learner felt. In the
abstract hypothesis process, the learner considers the reasons for the sense of difference
from the viewpoints of his/her identity; ability, aim, or thoughts and values of the external
community; and goals, needs, or thoughts. Then, the learner considers his/her purpose ofactivities in the external community that can balance the identity and values of the external
community. In the active testing process, the learner sets up a goal of the internal
community to make use of knowledge obtained in the external community to achieve
his/her purpose of activity in the internal community. Then, to achieve the goal in theinternal community, the learner plans his/her behavior in the internal community andhuman relations in the internal community. In addition, the learner considers manner tocommunicate in the internal community based on values of the internal community toconvince and make colleagues understand.
These are the process and the method for practicing learning from the external community
in the internal community and vice versa. When practicing learning from the internal
community in the external community, same method can be used by swapping terms
internal and external.
3.6 Tools
To support the execution of the method, the authors created a tool called "parallel diary,"
which consists of 15 questions. As shown in Figure 9, periodically using the parallel diarysuch as once a week, the learner reviews his/her experiences both in the internal andexternal communities. In response to questions based on the method, the learner records
the concrete experience, extracts the learning from the experience, and plans practice.

Figure 9. Periodic review using the parallel diary

4. EVALUATION
4.1 Evaluation procedure
Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

72

To evaluate the method and tool proposed in Section 3, the authors conducted theexperiment survey in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Experiment procedure for evaluation
The subjects were 49 working students at the Graduate School of System Design andManagement, Keio University. The authors conducted the experiment over three months.
The contexts of the experiment were the school program "design project (Dpro)" as theexternal community and workplace of each subject as the internal community. Dpro is alearning program based on project teams that aims to design products or services thatbring new value or value changes to the society by appropriately using the "system anddesign thinking" taught by Keio University (Ioki, 2016). The program took place for fourmonths from the middle of April 2018 to the middle of August 2018. In the first month,students learn thinking methods through lectures and exercises. From the second month,
for three months, the students organize teams of six people and design solutions. The
experiment took place from 13th May 2018 to 12th August 2018.
The subjects were those who volunteered to participate in the experimental group or thecontrol group from among the 52 working students participating in Dpro. Table 2 shows
aggregation for attributes of the subjects. In the experimental group, 28 subjects reviewed
their experiences by using the method and tool once a week during the program and also
answered the questionnaires before and after the program. In the control group, 21
subjects did not use the method and tool but answered questionnaires before and after the
program. The answers to the questions were on a six-point Likert scale.
Table 2. Aggregation for attributes of the subjects

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

73

The authors evaluated the results mainly by t-tests. As shown in Figure 11, t-tests
compared the results of the questionnaires before and after the program and verified thesignificant differences respectively in the experimental and control groups. The authors
judged each evaluation item to have an effect on the method when there was significant
difference only in the experimental groups. This is because if there is a significant
difference in both groups, it is interpreted that it is not the method but the program thathas an effect of improvement. Since there were no significant differences in both groups,
it can be interpreted that neither the method nor the program had an effect on
improvement.

Figure 11. Procedure for determining experiment results
The evaluation criteria for the experimental group showing significant differences was
based on a significance probability of 5% using the Holm method (Holm 1979). On theother hand, the evaluation criteria for the control group was based on a significanceprobability of 5%. The Holm method was not used for the control group because it would
cause the number of evaluated items not significant in the control group to increase and,as a result, the range for which the method is erroneously considered to be effective would
expand.
The following consists of the verification of the method and tool: whether they satisfy thedefined requirements and the validation of the method and tool (i.e., whether they achieve
the purpose of this study).
4.2 Results of verification of the method and tool
For the verification, the authors evaluated the method and tool from the viewpoints ofunderstandability, usability, and effectiveness of requirements.
The understandability evaluation was based on a six-point assessment of the ease ofunderstanding for each question of the tool (Table 3). The usability evaluation was basedon a six-point assessment of the ease of answering each question (Table 3), the selection
choice of and reason for the most difficult question to answer (Table 3), and time taken
for the tool usage (Table 4). The assessments are judged to be understandable if theyexceed the 3.5 value.
Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

74

Regarding the assessment for understandability (Table 3), the average of all questions
was 4.5 and each question item also exceeded 3.5, so understandability was confirmed.
For ease of answering (Table 3), the average of all questions was 3.9, so ease of answering
was confirmed. Question 9 and 10 scored 3.5 points, meaning there is room for
improvement.
As for the choice of the most difficult question to answer (Table 3), several subjects
choose question 5 (4 votes) and question 6 (9 votes) as the most difficult question toanswer. The reasons for question 5 were opinions such as "It is difficult to consider theknowledge or lessons I can practice in the workplace" or "It is necessary to abstract
experiences in the external community." The reasons for question 6 were opinions suchas "It does not always have a sense of the difference of the external community."
Table 3. Understandability and usability for each question

The distribution of the time taken for a one-time tool usage (Table 4) was shows averageof 20 minutes, a minimum of 5 minutes, and a maximum of 60 minutes. The average of
20 minutes can be acceptable as review work once a week.
Table 4. Distribution of time taken for one-time the tool usage

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

75

Effectiveness evaluation was conducted using t-testing to confirm whether the abilities ofthe experimental group related to the three requirements improved significantly or notafter the experiment. The three requirements are "autonomously learn and practice,""understand the different values between communities,” and “practice learning by his/her
initiative." The evaluation items consist of a self-assessments about the abilities needed
for the above requirements (items of A, B-a, B-b, C) and the abilities needed for thecomponents that realize each requirement. The authors created the questions on thecomponents with reference to the base concepts in Section 2.
The authors adapted Holm’s method (Holm, 1979) to the items with less than 1.3%
significance because the maximum was 3.1% among the items with significanceprobability less than 5%, it is necessary to choose one as there is no significant difference
between two items with the same significance. However, because it was not possible tochoose one, all items with 3.1% were excluded from the analysis. In addition, there arealso two items with 1.8% significance that were also excluded from the method.
Table 5 shows the results of the t-test on effectiveness for "autonomously learn andpractice." It confirmed that the method and tool have an effect regarding the requirementof "autonomously learn and practice" and component item A2. A1 can be interpreted as
an improvement effect by participating in the program. That is because there are
significant differences in both groups. Further, it is suggested that the method and tool
have an effect regarding component items of A3 and A4 because only the experimentalgroup has a significance probability below 5%.
Table 5. Results of t-test on effectiveness for "autonomously learn and practice"

Table 6 shows the results of the t-test on effectiveness for "understanding the different
values between communities." It was confirmed that the method and tool have an effectregarding the requirements of "understand the values of the external community" and"learner can understand the values of the internal community" and the component items
B2 and B3. Regarding component item B1, it can be interpreted as an improvement effectfrom participating in the program because there are significant differences in both groups.
Further, it is suggested that the method and tool have an effect regarding component item
B4 because only the experimental group has a significance probability below 5%.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

76

Table 6. Results of t-test on effectiveness for "understand the different values
between communities"

Table 7 shows the results of the t-test on effectiveness for “practice learning by his/her
initiative." It was not confirmed that the method and tool have an effect regarding therequirement of "practice learning by his/her initiative." However, it was confirmed thatthe method and tool have an effect regarding component item C5. For C4, it can beinterpreted as an improvement effect from participating in the program because there are
significant differences in both groups. Further, it is suggested that the method and tool
also have an effect regarding component item C2 because only the experimental grouphas significance probability below 5%.
Table 7. Results of t-test on effectiveness for "practice learning by his/her
initiative"

4.2 Results of validation of the method and tool
In the validation, the authors evaluated the method and tool in three ways. The first was
the extent and reason the experimental group thought that the method and tool contributed
to knowledge brokering. The second was the choice and reason for the most effective
question regarding knowledge brokering. The third was the t-test of the effectiveness forstudy purposes.
Table 8 shows the distribution of a six-point evaluation regarding to what extent theexperimental group thought that the method and tool contributed to knowledge brokering(judged to contribute if the value exceeds the average of 3.5 points). As the mean was 4.3
and it means that they contribute and the reasons for the evaluation were opinions suchas "By using the tool, I had the chance to look back on experience regularly," "Byoverlooking my experience, I was able to organize the purpose of the activities, mystrengths, weaknesses, and values of the community," "I was able to think connecting the
program and the workplace," and "I could firmly consider what I should do in theworkplace."

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

77

Table 8. Distribution of contribution of method and tool on knowledge brokering

Table 9 shows the result of choosing the most effective question for knowledge brokering.
Several subjects choose question 2 (5 votes), question 5 (11 votes), and question 12 (3votes) as the most effective. The reason for question 2 was "I was able to look back on
the experience." The reason for question 5 was "I was able to consider how I make use oflearning from the external community for the internal community." The reason forquestion 12 was "Motivation of action improved by setting goals." These opinions matchthe reasons why the method and tool contributed to knowledge brokering.
Table 9. Most effective question for knowledge brokering

An effectiveness evaluation was conducted using a t-test for confirming whether"knowledge brokering," "organizational learning," and "spontaneous careerdevelopment" significantly improved after the experiment. The procedure of analysis andjudgment are the same as above.
Table 10 shows the results of the t-test on the effectiveness of "knowledge brokering" byusing two evaluation items. The first is "The learner is practicing the learning from theexternal community at the internal community" and the second is "The members at theinternal community are accepting learner's practice of learning from the external
community.” It was confirmed that the method and tool have an improvement effect.
Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

78

Table 10. Results of t-test on effectiveness for "knowledge brokering"

Table 11 shows the results of the t-test on effectiveness for "organizational learning."
Regarding the organizational learning due to knowledge brokering, evaluation criteria
consist of whether the learner's procedure, content, purpose in the workplace havechanged due to cross-boundary experiences. It was not confirmed that the method andtool have an overall improvement effect but were suggested to have an effect on E1
because only the experimental group has significance probability below 5%.
Table 11. Results of t-test on effectiveness for "organizational learning"

Table 12 shows the results of the t-test on the effectiveness for "spontaneous careerdevelopment." Regarding spontaneous career development due to knowledge brokering,
the authors used the protean career scale (Takeishi & Hayashi, 2013) as evaluation criteria.
The protean career scale consists of the protean career self-oriented scale and the protean
career value prioritized scale. It was not confirmed that the method and tool have an
improvement effect.
Table 12. Results of t-test on effectiveness for "spontaneous career development"

4.3 Discussion
In the verification, it was confirmed that the method and tool have an improvement effecton “autonomously learn and practice” and “understand the different values between
communities” among the three defined requirements. Regarding “practice learning by
his/her initiative," the improvement effects of the method and tool were not confirmed.
The authors’ consideration of the reason that the improvement effect was not confirmed
in "practice learning by his/her initiative" is as follows. In the method, "practice learningby his/her initiative" corresponds to an active testing process. Questions in the active
testing process assumed the learner can answer questions 5, 9, and 10. On the other hand,
they were difficult questions to answer. Thus, it is thought that the difficulty to answer
questions 5, 9, and 10 was an inhibiting factor in considering active testing.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

79

In the validation, it was confirmed that the method and tool have an improvement effecton knowledge brokering. The results of the questionnaire infer that some factors promoteknowledge brokering due to using the method and tool. The first factor is promotion for
constant reviewing the experience, which corresponds to the requirement of"autonomously learn and practice." The second factor is promotion for understanding of
the values of the community, corresponding to the requirement of "understand thedifferent values between communities." The third factor is promotion for considerationof behavior at the external community, which corresponds to the requirement of "practicelearning by his/her initiative."On the other hand, there was no significant improvement effect on "organizational
learning " and "spontaneous career development.” The authors expect the need for
additional survey such as questionnaire statistical analysis and interviews to identify thesefactors. In addition, interviews with superiors and colleagues in the workplace of thesubjects will promote a multi-viewpoint understanding of "organizational learning."
From the evaluation results, although it was confirmed that the proposed method and tool
are effective for knowledge brokering, there is also rooms for improvements. As a resultof the verification, questions 5, 6, 9, and 10 need to be improved to be answered easier.
In addition, based on the results of the additional survey, the authors will consider an
improvement of the method and tool to further promote "knowledge brokering,""organizational learning," and "spontaneous career development.”
In addition, the questionnaire asked the experimental group about improvements in themethod and tool. The representative opinions are as follows: "Reducing items to entry,""To further concretely examine the situations in the internal community to make use ofknowledge and lessons," "Enriching cases that serve as a reference for answer," "Flexibly
changing timing and communities to review," and "Having the opportunity of dialogue
and coaching based on the results of the review." Based on these of opinions, the authors
will improve the method and tool.
This study conducted the experiment in the graduate school as the external community.
To further confirm the effect of this proposal, other external communities such as
volunteer groups or side jobs should be considered.

5. CONCLUSIONSThis study aimed to promote organizational learning and spontaneous career developmentin cross-boundary learning. For this purpose, it proposed a method and tool to solve
problems such as weathering of experiences and persecution and promote knowledge
brokering. The method is a combination of existing models, namely the experiential
learning cycle, knowledge broker, and job crafting models.
As a result of the evaluation, it was confirmed that the method and tool promoteknowledge brokering. However, it was not confirmed that the method and tool have aneffect on “organizational learning “ and “spontaneous career development.”

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

80

The authors expect that the method and tool will be utilized by individuals who want tolearn outside the workplace, graduate schools who want to provide more practicallearning, or companies who want to train their employees through cross-boundary
learning.
The method and tool are thought to be effective for cross-boundary learning that learners
frequently go back and forth between one community and another community, such as
graduate school, volunteer groups or side jobs. On the other hand, the effect could be
limited in certain type of cross-boundary learning that learners do not frequently go backand forth, such as one-time seminars.
Future study topics include the following;- Identify factors of "organizational learning" and "spontaneous career development." Theauthors should use additional surveys such as questionnaire statistical analysis andinterview to identify these factors.
- Improve the method and tool to further promote "knowledge brokering," "organizational
learning," and "spontaneous career development." For “knowledge brokering,” theauthors expect improvement on the requirement of "practice learning by his/her
initiative."- Ascertain whether the method and tool are effective in external communities other than
graduate schools. For example, volunteer groups or side jobs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank Mikiko Nakada, a researcher with the Graduate School of
System Design and Management at Keio University, for sharing feedback on an earlier
version of this paper. The authors are also grateful to the working students at theGraduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University for participating
to the experiment.

REFERENCES[1] Allen, T.J., Cohen, S. (1969), “Information flow in R&D laboratories,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 12–19.
[2] Anatan (2013), “A proposed framework of university to industry knowledgetransfer”, Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 2(2), 303–325.
[3] Araki, J. (2007), “Study on the learning environment that encourages career
establishment of individuals working in companies”, Japan Society for Educational
Technology, 31(1), 15–27 (In Japanese).
[4] Arthur, M.B. (1994), “The boundaryless career: A new perspective for organizationinquiry,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(4), 295–306.
[5] Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural holes: The social structure of competition, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
[6] Douglass T. Hall (2003), “The protean career: A quarter-century journey”, The
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 1–13.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1

81[7] Holm, S. (1979), “A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.” Scand.
J. Statist., 6, 65-70.
[8] Ioki, M. (2016), “Example of an Innovative Thinking Education through Systemand Design Thinking”, The 4th Annual Meeting of Innovation Education Society(In Japanese).
[9] Ishiyama, N. (2013), “How can brokers in external communities of practice
introduce external practices into internal communities of practice?”, Japanese
Journal of Administrative Science, 26(2), 115–132 (In Japanese).
[10] Ishiyama, N. (2018a), “Relationship between external activities including side job
and Job crafting: Consideration of the effect of human resource development on
main job”, Journal of Research for Labor in Japan, 60, 82–92 (In Japanese)[11] Ishiyama, N. (2018b). Mechanism of cross-boundary learning, Fukumura
Publishing (In Japanese)[12] Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (2018), “Study group report forstrengthening human resources in Japanese industry”, 1-63 (In Japanese).
[13] Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment, Prentice-Hall.
[14] Martin, J.N. (1994), “The PMTE Paradigm: Exploring the Relationship Between
Systems Engineering Process and Tools”, Presented at the INCOSE 4th Annual
International Symposium.
[15] Matsuo, M. (2009), Learning hospital organization: Patient-oriented structuring
and leadership, Dobunkan Publishing (In Japanese).
[16] Takeishi, E., Hayashi, Y. (2013), “Current status of employee's autonomous career
consciousness—Application of protean career and boundary-less career concepts”,
Career Design Research, 9, 35–48 (In Japanese).
[17] Tsai, W. (2001), “Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of
network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation andperformance”, Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.
[18] Wrzesniewski, A. (2001), “Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active craftersof their work”, Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.

Copyright  2020 GMP Press and Printing
ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)