The Impact of Organisational Learning on Innovation and Institutional Performance in Universities: A Narrative Review

Abstract

Learning has established itself as a fundamental pillar for the adaptation and continuous growth of organisations. This article analyses the impact of organisational learning on innovation and institutional performance in universities, focusing on five interdependent dimensions: organisational culture, knowledge management, organisational memory, continuous feedback, and dynamic capabilities. Through a narrative review of the specialised literature, a systemic framework is proposed that conceives organisational learning as an integral and strategic process, where each dimension contributes in key ways to institutional strengthening. Organisational culture fosters shared values and readiness for change; knowledge management enables the generation and application of relevant knowledge; organisational memory guarantees the continuity and transfer of learning; constant feedback facilitates adaptation; and dynamic capabilities prepare the university to face complex and changing contexts. As a practical contribution, an operational agenda is designed that links each dimension with a strategic action, a follow-up indicator, a suggested institutional tool, and theoretical references. This proposal seeks to offer an adaptable roadmap for management teams, quality assurance units, and university management training spaces.

1. Introduction

In the organisational sphere, learning has become a vital foundation for adaptation and ongoing growth. Beyond conceptual differences, there is consensus that this process reflects a culture focused on change, flexibility, and innovation, which are key elements for achieving strategic objectives and improving institutional performance [1]. Therefore, this type of learning, which transcends the mere accumulation of individual knowledge, is configured as a form of shared intelligence, where the integration of diverse perspectives allows for more agile and effective responses to environmental challenges [2]. Its actual value is that, by institutionalising the experiences gained, organisations not only improve their immediate procedures but also significantly transform their long-term performance patterns [3].

In the university context, some institutions have begun to incorporate formal models of organisational learning as a strategy to address structural, technological, and management challenges, such as adaptation to change, digital transformation, and alignment with highly dynamic environments [4,5]. However, a diversity of approaches and controversies persists regarding their effective implementation. While Argyris and Schön [6] highlight the need for double-loop learning to achieve profound transformations, other studies suggest that approaches may vary according to the level of organisational maturity; institutions with less experience obtain better results by applying simple strategies, while those with more consolidated structures can adopt more complex methods [7].

In turn, recent research has shown that organisational learning directly influences institutional performance, thereby improving teaching, research, and outreach processes [8]. Similarly, dimensions such as the acquisition, distribution, and interpretation of knowledge, as well as the consolidation of organisational memory, are crucial for institutions to respond effectively to emerging challenges [9].

This article aims to analyse the impact of organisational learning on innovation and institutional performance in universities, with a particular focus on knowledge management, organisational culture, organisational memory, continuous feedback, and dynamic capabilities. It is argued that organisational culture acts as a facilitator of continuous learning and institutional transformation processes [10], while dynamic capabilities enable universities to adapt, integrate new knowledge, and sustain improvement processes [3]. A systemic and integrative framework is proposed that connects these dimensions through a logic of continuous improvement, sustainability, and organisational transformation. This framework will not only enrich the theoretical discussion but also offer practical guidelines for organisational transformation in university contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

This article offers a narrative review of organisational learning. The narrative review allows for a qualitative, critical, and reflective synthesis of the literature, avoiding the methodological rigidity of systematic reviews’ inclusion and exclusion criteria. Similarly, Rother [11] indicates that a narrative review is characterised by a flexible and contextual approach, facilitating a deeper understanding of different theoretical perspectives to elucidate the phenomenon under study. Likewise, Booth et al. [12] argue that this type of review can incorporate systematic procedures such as structured searches or explicit assessments of sources to enhance methodological transparency and minimise bias in identifying documents relevant to the phenomenon under study.

Meanwhile, Machi and McEvoy [13] argue that the narrative review allows for the development of a strong argument by logically organising the evidence that supports a clear thesis on the current understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

Furthermore, Yin [14] states that this approach can also serve explanatory purposes by clarifying significant concepts, theories, and empirical findings that address questions such as “how” and “why.” Therefore, these analytical dimensions are essential in studying organisational learning, as they enable its complexity to be examined from a holistic and interconnected perspective. The search was conducted explicitly on 30 March 2025 using Google Scholar, focusing on prioritising peer-reviewed academic publications and specialised books in the fields of organisational learning, knowledge management, and higher education. No specific timeframe was set to include both foundational developments and recent research approaches.

The search strategy combined general and specific terms, selected based on the initial analysis of the research problem, the specialised literature, and the conceptual dimensions outlined in the proposed analytical framework. At first, broad terms such as “organizational learning,” “universities,” and “higher education” were used, reflecting the main focus of the study. As the review progressed and recurring conceptual themes appeared, the searches were refined with more precise keywords related to the developing dimensions of the analytical model: “organizational culture,” “knowledge management,” “organizational memory,” “organizational feedback,” and “dynamic capabilities.” This iterative and systematic approach allowed for wider thematic coverage and ensured the relevance of the selected documents, following methodological guidelines for rigorous narrative reviews [12,15].

The selection process was carried out in three phases. First, each author individually reviewed relevant texts, assessing their thematic relevance, conceptual clarity, and contribution to the development of the model’s analytical dimensions. Second, multiple discussion rounds took place to reach an agreement on the most relevant sources, considering their internal consistency, theoretical value, and alignment with the systemic approach to organisational learning. Finally, it was decided to work with a total of 47 documents, including scientific articles, specialised books, and chapters from academic collections.

Although formal inclusion and exclusion criteria were not applied as in systematic reviews, the selection of texts was based on their theoretical relevance, empirical support, and methodological rigour. This was assessed through indicators such as clarity in defining concepts, the connection between theory and evidence, and relevance to the higher education context, as suggested by Torraco [16] and Snyder [17] for integrative and narrative reviews.

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1. Organisational Learning at Universities

Universities, as complex, knowledge-driven institutions, face increasing challenges that require constant innovation, institutional sustainability, and ongoing improvement in academic quality. Here, organisational learning has become a vital approach to enhancing internal capabilities and effectively navigating dynamic and competitive environments [18].

From an institutional perspective, organisational learning involves not only accumulating individual knowledge but also fostering collective dynamics that adapt organisational structures, practices, and cultures. Similarly, Rodriguez-Ponce and Rodriguez [19] argue that this learning occurs through a dynamic process of knowledge transfer across hierarchical levels, which drives organisational transformation and enhances both individual and group performance.

Nevertheless, the true potential of this process is realised when individual knowledge is integrated within a collaborative environment. As Mireshghi et al. [20] demonstrate, an individual’s capacity for absorption directly influences academic performance; however, its impact is maximised when that knowledge becomes a shared resource through cooperative learning. Research shows that collaborative environments act as a bridge between individual and organisational learning, fostering educational innovation [21]. Consequently, Rudihartati and Dwiono [22] emphasise that human capital functions as the mechanism translating learning into competitive advantages, nurturing collective competencies that influence all organisational levels.

Several universities have already officially integrated organisational learning models into their institutional improvement plans, establishing systematic mechanisms to evaluate, document, and reuse knowledge [5]. This integration is therefore crucial and supports change management, pedagogical innovation, and educational quality, provided it is adapted within a systemic approach to prevent fragmentation between academic and administrative units.

The connection between organisational learning and quality management is well documented. Aminbeidokhti et al. [4] suggest that an institutional culture based on learning helps in the implementation of total quality management (TQM) principles, especially through feedback and knowledge management systems that optimise decision-making at every level of the organisation.

Nonetheless, university organisational learning processes face several challenges. Kezar and Holcombe [7] highlight barriers such as structural rigidity, resistance to change, and the lack of institutional incentives. These obstacles hinder the cross-cutting nature of learning and reduce its impact on organisational performance.

For organisational learning to become a strategic resource, both formal and informal mechanisms are essential to foster critical evaluation, systematise experiences, and adopt best practices. According to Argote et al. [3], these processes do not develop spontaneously; rather, they require explicit structures, committed leadership, and a culture of collaboration to capture, transfer, and utilise institutional knowledge.

The role of organisational learning in universities is crucial for institutional transformation. When implemented effectively, it not only enhances academic and administrative performance but also boosts resilience and the ability to adapt to changing environments. Hence, organisational learning acts as a strategic route towards a university that is innovative, sustainable, and continually developing.

3.2. Organisational Memory and Knowledge Management

Organisational memory and knowledge management are vital for organisational learning, innovation, and adaptation in dynamic environments. Knowledge management (KM) is defined as a set of processes that enable organisations to create, store, share, and apply knowledge effectively, thereby improving performance [23]. Similarly, Donate and Sánchez de Pablo [24] emphasise the importance of aligning KM with organisational strategy, noting that proper implementation not only enhances operational efficiency but also fosters innovation and organisational learning. More recently, Ramakrishna et al. [25] expanded this view by highlighting its role in highly dynamic public contexts. Meanwhile, organisational memory refers to the institutional capacity to store, retain, and retrieve information over time, supporting its use in strategic decision-making within evolving environments [26].

According to Antunes and Pinheiro [1], organisational memory is a crucial part of the organisational learning process, as it records, preserves, and reuses past experiences as resources for future decisions. This concept aligns with Huber’s [27] perspective, which identifies organisational memory as one of the four fundamental processes of organisational learning, alongside knowledge acquisition, distribution, and interpretation.

From an operational perspective, Argote et al. [3] examine the mechanisms through which organisations systematise knowledge via storage, coding, and shared access. It is not merely about preserving information but about ensuring its availability and utility in contexts of change or staff turnover. Additionally, Alavi and Leidner [23] highlight the role of knowledge management systems (KMS) as tools that reinforce the construction of organisational memory and encourage ongoing improvement in decision-making. These systems are especially effective when they focus on achieving sustainable competitive advantages [2,28]. Empirical evidence supports the relationship between knowledge management (KM) and institutional performance. Obeso et al. [29] show that effective KM increases the adaptive capacity of organisations. Similarly, Ramakrishna et al. [25] demonstrate that the interaction between organisational memory and KM has positive effects on performance, especially in the public sector, where these capabilities are essential.

Culturally, Hussein et al. [30] argue that a learning organisation culture encourages its members to share accurate information with the right people at the right time and place, and decisions are based on the retrieval of valuable knowledge stored in institutional memory. This cultural environment supports the cross-flow of information, operational efficiency, and institutional innovation [10].

From an evaluative perspective, knowledge storage is regarded as a fundamental element of organisational memory. In this context, Yavaş and Celik [31] describe that their Organisational Learning Scale includes the subfactor cognitive processes, “receiving, analysing, storing and placing information,” with items that measure the ability to archive, retrieve, and reuse knowledge when faced with new challenges.

Therefore, organisational memory should be viewed not as a passive repository but as an active force for innovation, decision-making, and ongoing learning. In the university context, Rodríguez-Ponce et al. [8] contend that managing and mobilising accumulated institutional knowledge enables the optimisation of administrative and academic processes, thereby improving institutional sustainability and adaptability through flexible structures and effective governance. This evidence is supported by García-Sánchez et al. [32], who demonstrate that organisational learning, measured by “absorptive capacity,” has a direct influence on innovation. In turn, this relationship affects institutional performance. Additionally, Garrido-Moreno et al. [33] emphasise that the combination of innovation and organisational resilience, grounded in a culture of shared knowledge and external networks, strengthens collective memory and boosts the strategic performance of the organisation, thereby highlighting the importance of collective learning for institutional resilience.

3.3. University Quality and the Impact of Institutional Learning

Currently, higher education institutions, such as universities, face the challenge of maintaining consistent academic quality to remain competitive in a globalised and highly dynamic environment. Bess and Dee [34] emphasise that, like other organisations, universities are under increasing pressure to improve continually, not only in offering excellent academic programmes but also in their roles as agents of innovation, both in research and in their relationships with their environment.

Senge [35] argues, from an organisational perspective, that a learning organisation is one that continually develops its capacity to create its future. This vision suggests that universities must learn to adapt proactively to changes in the global context. In line with this idea, Elbawab [36] argues that organisational learning is essential for universities to adapt effectively, drive innovation, and ensure institutional sustainability by facilitating change and improving the organisation through systematic institutional learning practices.

The evolution of universities aligns with this, being seen as complex systems that require dynamic organisational structures. Cameron and Quinn [37] argue that educational organisations must be regarded as systems that constantly evolve to remain relevant. This process involves shifts in institutional culture, decision-making methods, and collective learning capacity. Empirical evidence supports this perspective; Elbawab [36] demonstrates that a strong organisational learning culture results in improved learning processes, which subsequently lead to notable gains in institutional performance, innovation, and university sustainability.

However, when discussing innovation within the university environment, it is essential to refer to the Triple Helix model developed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff [38], which argues that interaction among universities, industry, and government is crucial for transforming knowledge into socially beneficial solutions. Recent research has broadened this concept, demonstrating that these interactions need to be dynamic and bidirectional to maximise their impact. Linton [39] emphasises that progress depends on “dynamic relationships, synergies, collaborations, and coordinated environments” between the three sectors and advocates for a greater focus on the “dynamic interactions between universities, industries, and governments.” This view aligns with Marginson’s [40] proposition that universities should act as “dual engines,” combining academic excellence with the capacity to generate innovation through research and intersectoral collaboration.

In this context, O’Reilly and Tushman [41] emphasise that the universities performing the best are those capable of blending professional training with the generation of applied growth, creating synergy between their teaching mission and the evolving demands of the environment. Such integration broadens their social responsibility towards producing tangible impacts and aligns with the logic of the Triple Helix. Recent empirical evidence corroborates this: Durmuş Şenyapar and Bayındır [42] show that quality assurance mechanisms must be strategically integrated with innovation and industry-academia collaboration policies to boost institutional competitiveness. To make this transformation feasible, a flexible organisational architecture that supports continuous learning and rapid adaptation is essential. Authors like Hannan and Freeman [43] warn that only organisations able to overcome structural inertia can respond swiftly to environmental uncertainties. Additionally, Dill [44] contends that universities must increasingly position themselves as learning organisations capable of creating, transferring, and applying knowledge in constant interaction with government and industry, making intersectoral cooperation a fundamental aspect of organisational learning. This view is supported by Hassan and Ait Oufkir [45], who identify a direct link between organisational learning capacity and the development of innovations in higher education institutions, reaffirming that external collaboration and a culture of continuous improvement are vital for academic sustainability.

For their part, Gibbons et al. [46] argued that the contemporary university as we know it today must fulfil a dual mission, combining fundamental research with the production of applied knowledge to respond comprehensively to social challenges. This vision has been expanded by Viera Trevisan et al. [47], who broadened the discussion by proposing transformative organisational learning that can promote sustainability and reconfigure internal structures, culture, and institutional decision-making processes, thereby enhancing the dynamic capacities necessary for continuous adaptation.

In line with this, Argyris and Schön [6] defined organisational learning as the ability of an institution to examine its practices and improve them in response to changing contexts. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi [48] and Senge [35], this ability is driven by the integrated management of explicit and tacit knowledge through the SECI model and the five systemic disciplines, which ensure the continuous conversion of experience into usable knowledge. Supporting this idea, Garvin [49] emphasises that this vision only flourishes in environments that encourage experimentation, knowledge sharing, and systematic review of processes, making learning an explicit strategic objective. Therefore, the university not only innovates but also strengthens its organisational structure, aligning its work with societal demands and consolidating its long-term relevance.

Similarly, Mintzberg [50] emphasises the importance of establishing flexible organisational structures and fostering interdisciplinary communication as key strategies for promoting collaboration and innovation. Huber [27] states that organisational learning must be aligned with social expectations to ensure institutional relevance and legitimacy.

Various studies have highlighted the direct impact of organisational learning on university quality, both at the academic and administrative levels. Rodríguez-Ponce et al. [51] emphasise that organisational learning has a direct influence on academic processes, thereby improving management within educational institutions and facilitating continuous improvement. Indeed, the impact of institutional learning on university quality is evident, as it not only optimises teaching but also enhances research and links with the environment, as pointed out by Rodríguez-Ponce et al. [9], who emphasise that such learning has a direct impact on academic work.

Other research also shows that organisational learning greatly enhances the resilience and performance of universities, even in complex settings. Mousa et al. [10] provide evidence on how universities can use this type of learning to strengthen their internal capacities, thereby supporting adaptation processes that improve educational quality, especially in challenging academic environments. This aligns with Hussein [30], who links organisational learning culture to institutional performance and innovation, particularly in public universities where continuous improvement is vital to maintaining high standards.

Additionally, Obeso et al. [29] stress that organisational learning serves as a mediator between knowledge management processes and institutional performance. According to these authors, when strong organisational learning structures are in place, knowledge management efforts lead to significant improvements in institutional performance, thereby reinforcing the idea that educational quality is closely connected to ongoing learning.

Similarly, Dee and Leišytė [18] argue that organisational learning in universities not only enhances internal processes but also fosters the development of a research agenda aimed at increasing its impact, presenting new challenges on the journey to strengthening academic quality through organisational improvement. However, Kezar and Holcombe [7] caution that significant barriers obstruct the effective realisation of this type of learning, thereby limiting its potential benefits for educational quality.

Regarding innovation and ongoing development, Aminbeidokhti et al. [4] explain how total quality and innovation in universities are influenced by organisational learning, highlighting that a focus on knowledge management and continuous improvement is essential for enhancing university quality. Similarly, Antunes and Pinheiro [1] emphasise the importance of organisational learning as a key factor in driving continuous improvement, due to the effective integration of organisational memory and knowledge management.

3.4. Proposed Model and Dialogue with Classical Approaches

The narrative review facilitated the identification of five key dimensions that, in a mutually dependent manner, shape a systemic approach to organisational learning within the university context: organisational culture, knowledge management, organisational memory, continuous feedback, and dynamic capabilities. These dimensions were not chosen at random but emerged inductively from a thorough integration of the specialised literature. Their identification addresses a dual need: firstly, to capture the complexity of institutional learning processes in dynamic academic environments; and secondly, to translate this knowledge into practical guidelines for organisational improvement.

As the foundation of the model, organisational culture not only legitimises learning but also fosters the conditions for it to thrive. Senge [35] associates it with “learning organisations,” while Elbawab [36] recognises it as a pillar of sustainable universities. Research, such as that by Hussein et al. [30], shows its direct influence on innovation and institutional performance. This dimension manifests in shared values (like trust and openness), ongoing human development processes, and a collective dedication to improvement, creating an ecosystem where knowledge flows and is transformed.

Knowledge management functions as the circulatory system of the model, facilitating the creation, storage, transfer, and application of institutional knowledge [23]. Recent research [2,28] affirms its importance in educational competitiveness and innovation. Effective implementation requires dynamic models such as Nonaka and Takeuchi’s SECI [48], complemented by Peschl’s prospective vision [52], alongside technological infrastructures and policies that promote knowledge circulation.

Organisational memory represents accumulated institutional intelligence, going beyond merely archiving information. As Huber [27], Argote et al. [3], and Obeso et al. [29] argue, a well-managed memory optimises knowledge transfer and organisational performance. Its development requires combining formal mechanisms (documentary repositories) with informal ones (lessons-learned sessions), integrating this cognitive capital into daily decision-making processes.

Continuous feedback mechanisms act as the model’s regulatory system, ensuring its alignment with institutional objectives. This feedback should be based on both quantitative and qualitative data, maintaining the system’s connection to strategic goals and embedding continuous improvement within a structural logic consistent with the principles of total quality. Aminbeidokhti et al. [4] suggest that integrating these principles with knowledge management boosts institutional innovation, a view further supported by Cheng et al. [2] in the context of higher education competitiveness.

Finally, dynamic capabilities—defined by Mousa et al. [10] as the organisation’s ability to reconfigure and adapt its competencies in response to environmental changes—represent the overarching outcome of the system. These capabilities not only enable adaptation but also drive institutional transformation in response to new environmental demands. Achieving this requires implementing flexible organisational structures and participatory governance frameworks that reduce rigidity and promote decentralised decision-making processes. However, as Kezar and Holcombe [7] warn, this process involves confronting and overcoming institutional barriers that hinder its implementation. At an individual level, Mireshghi et al. [20] emphasise that the ability of actors to absorb knowledge is a vital component for the effective development of dynamic capabilities at the organisational level.

Although we recognise that certain aspects of the model, such as knowledge management and organisational memory, have overlapping areas, their distinction within the proposed framework is based on conceptual and operational reasons. As Antunes and Pinheiro [1] note, knowledge management mainly relates to the active and dynamic processes through which an organisation creates, shares, transfers, and applies knowledge, involving technological infrastructure, governance structures, and institutional policies. In contrast, organisational memory denotes the accumulated wealth of experiences and learning, stored through records, practices, routines, and institutional narratives, serving as a collective repository that guides future decisions.

Following Huber [27] and Argote et al. [3], organisational memory is regarded as a key outcome of organisational learning, while knowledge management acts as one of its enabling mechanisms. This distinction allows us to see both aspects as complementary; knowledge management focuses on the circulation and current use of knowledge, whereas organisational memory emphasises its preservation and future accessibility. This concept is also reflected in the model of Nonaka and Takeuchi [48], who differentiate between the creation of knowledge through the interaction of tacit and explicit knowledge, and its subsequent institutionalisation as part of the organisational structure–process that leads to shared routines and collective memories.

The conceptual robustness of the model is enhanced by comparing it with traditional theoretical frameworks of organisational learning. Unlike fragmented or linear proposals, the approach developed here integrates structural, cultural, and strategic dimensions into a cohesive operating system, particularly suited to the university context. This relationship is summarised in

Table 1. Correspondence between classical theoretical frameworks and the proposed model.

Classical Approach	Key Conceptual Elements	Correspondence with the Proposed Model
Huber [27]	Four essential processes of organisational learning: knowledge acquisition, distribution, interpretation, and memory.	Knowledge management (creation, distribution, and application) and organisational memory (storage, retrieval, and reuse).
Argyris and Schön [6]	Single-loop learning (adjustment without questioning assumptions) and double-loop learning (revision of underlying assumptions).	Continuous feedback is understood as a mechanism that allows for operational adjustments and strategic reviews of institutional activities.
Senge [35]	The five disciplines: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning.	Organisational culture fosters shared values, participative leadership, and collaborative learning. It is also linked to dynamic capabilities by facilitating a systemic vision.
Nonaka and Takeuchi [48]	SECI model: socialisation, externalisation, combination, and internalisation of knowledge (management of tacit and explicit knowledge).	Knowledge management, especially in its articulation of knowledge conversion processes and institutional value creation.
Teece et al. [53]	Dynamic capabilities: organisational ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure competencies in changing environments.	Dynamic capabilities, as an expression of the university’s strategic flexibility to adapt and innovate in the face of external challenges.

, which shows the correspondence between the main traditional approaches and the model’s dimensions.

This table emphasises the evolutionary and integrative nature of the proposed model, which does not replace earlier theoretical approaches but instead articulates them within a more operational framework, specifically suited to the university environment. Explicit integration of each dimension within established theoretical frameworks strengthens the model’s academic validity and legitimacy, thereby enabling a more comprehensive understanding and practical application among institutional stakeholders.

In summary, this proposal seeks to tackle fragmented approaches to organisational learning by offering an analytical and practical framework that recognises the complexity of the university context, supporting progress towards a more reflective, participatory, and continuous improvement-focused governance model.

4. Results

The results of this research are embodied in the formulation of a systemic model of organisational learning, comprising five interdependent dimensions: organisational culture, knowledge management, organisational memory, continuous feedback, and dynamic capabilities. This model not only offers an integrative perspective for understanding learning processes in universities, but also proposes a concrete and contextualised operational route for its institutional implementation.

From this perspective, organisational learning is viewed as a holistic and interconnected system, where each dimension plays a strategic role. Its effectiveness relies not on isolated actions but on the synergistic coordination among its components. The absence or malfunction of one of these dimensions can undermine the entire system, as organisational learning does not occur spontaneously but results from deliberate and sustained coordination among structures, practices, and key actors. Embracing this systemic approach enables the institutionalisation of knowledge as a cross-cutting, continuous, and transformation-driven practice. Within this framework, universities can establish themselves as resilient, innovative, and adaptable organisations in the face of constantly evolving environments.

As a strategy for implementing the model, an institutional action plan was developed that transforms each dimension into a specific line of intervention, complete with its respective follow-up indicators, recommended tools, and supporting theoretical foundations. This proposal is presented in a structured format in

Table 2. Proposed institutional action plan for the implementation of organisational learning in universities.

Dimension	Key Action	Application Indicator	Suggested Instrument	Related Authors
Organisational Culture	Promote a shared vision and participatory leadership.	Participation percentage in institutional conferences and collaborative activities	Focus groups, participatory workshops	Hussein et al. [30]; Mousa et al. [10]; Senge [35]
Knowledge management	Create accessible repositories and QM systems.	Number of shared resources/Number of unique monthly visits to the institutional repository	Moodle platform, updated institutional repository	Alavi and Leidner [23]; Cheng et al. [2]; Donate and Sánchez de Pablo [24]
Organisational Memory	Systematise experiences, mistakes, and best practices	Number of formally incorporated lessons learned records in the institutional system	Institutional blogs, updated document database	Antunes and Pinheiro [1]; Argote [54]; Huber [27]
Feedback	Conduct post-accreditation surveys and evaluations	Number of improvement plans implemented based on institutional feedback	Institutional feedback surveys, minutes of analysis sessions, and record of improvement plans derived with date, responsible parties, and progress status	Aminbeidokhti et al. [4]; Obeso et al. [29]; Yavaş and Celik [31]
Dynamic Capabilities	Form adaptive and interdisciplinary teams	Number of institutional innovations with internal and/or external validation implemented	Institutional innovation tracking systems, evaluation reports on implemented projects, and innovation KPIs validated by internal or external bodies	Argyris and Schön [6]; Elbawab [36]; Mireshghi et al. [20]

, which serves as a key input to guide organisational change processes based on a logic of continuous improvement and collective learning.

The table should not be seen as a fixed recipe, but rather as a flexible guide that can be adapted to different institutional realities. Its components can be tailored based on the level of organisational maturity, cultural context, strategic priorities, or available resources. Its main value lies in connecting theory and practice, providing a concrete and well-grounded framework that links university management with the principles of organisational learning, fostering a more collaborative, sustainable, and results-oriented governance.

It is recommended to use this agenda as a guide in various strategic contexts, such as for the following topics: (1) Institutional strategic planning processes; (2) Organisational performance evaluations; (3) Design of post-accreditation improvement plans; (4) Academic and pedagogical innovation programmes; (5) Training in leadership and university management.

5. Discussion

A key contribution of this research is the introduction of a systemic approach to organisational learning, carefully structured around five interconnected dimensions: organisational culture, knowledge management, organisational memory, continuous feedback, and dynamic capabilities. These dimensions play essential roles within the institutional framework. Culture fosters shared values; knowledge management supports the creation and utilisation of knowledge; organisational memory preserves continuity and transfer; feedback enables ongoing adjustments; and dynamic capabilities will allow the university to adapt to future scenarios.

This system should be regarded not merely as a collection of elements but as an interconnected network. Huber [27] previously warned that the processes of acquiring, interpreting, and sharing knowledge require active structures. Argote et al. [3] further emphasise that without precise mechanisms for knowledge transfer, organisational learning can become fragmented and less effective. In many universities, especially in Latin America, these structures still operate in isolation, thereby hindering systemic feedback and the practical utilisation of accumulated knowledge.

Implementing this systemic approach requires enabling conditions, such as access to appropriate technologies and an institutional culture focused on change. Senge [35] described learning organisations as entities capable of reinvention through continuous learning. Elbawab [36] and Donate and Sánchez de Pablo [24] agree that such cultures not only enhance institutional resilience but also act as catalysts for structural innovation processes.

The proposed approach can be integrated into universities through institutional policies that link strategic planning with knowledge management, quality assurance processes, and pedagogical innovation. For example, teaching departments, internal assurance units, and self-assessment teams might adopt this systemic framework as a model for improving core processes. Additionally, external accreditation frameworks could incorporate these elements as evaluation criteria, encouraging a shift from isolated improvements to an ongoing organisational learning system.

Furthermore, the ethical dimension of organisational learning should not be ignored. When errors are identified, lessons are shared, and evidence-based decisions are encouraged, universities become more transparent and socially accountable. This method aligns with the ideals of sustainability and responsibility, which are crucial for institutions that value their communities.

Finally, a persistent priority is the full integration of organisational learning with pedagogical innovation. The connection between these two would enable the redesign of the curriculum based on a cycle of continuous improvement, enhance teacher training as a reflective practice, and embed institutional learning into the graduate profile. Consequently, students would not only be the recipients of improvement but also active contributors to institutional learning.

6. Conclusions

The proposed analytical framework, comprising five interdependent dimensions—organisational culture, knowledge management, organisational memory, continuous feedback, and dynamic capabilities—enables organisational learning to be understood not as an isolated practice but rather as a comprehensive and coordinated system that drives continuous improvement, fosters institutional innovation, and promotes long-term sustainability. This systemic view is particularly relevant for universities, which operate in dynamic and complex environments that require constant adaptability.

A practical application of the model was enabled by creating an operational agenda that connects each dimension with a specific strategic action, a monitoring indicator, a recommended institutional tool, and a supporting theoretical framework. This agenda functions as a flexible, context-aware guide for management teams, quality assurance units, organisational improvement initiatives, and university management training programmes. Its versatile design makes it a useful resource for steering institutional change processes in a structured and informed way.

In summary, this research emphasises the academic consolidation of organisational learning at the university level and offers a comprehensive plan for its strategic implementation. Progressing as a learning institution requires the development of adaptable organisational structures, the cultivation of a culture of shared knowledge, and the alignment of institutional initiatives with continuous improvement, consistent innovation, and meaningful social contribution.

6.1. Practical, Theoretical, and Institutional Implications

This study has multiple implications. From a practical perspective, the proposed model provides a flexible tool to enhance knowledge management and quality in universities, particularly in strategic planning, reaccreditation, and organisational development processes. Theoretically, it broadens the discussion on organisational learning by proposing a systemic and operational vision that integrates dimensions usually treated in isolation. In institutional terms, it promotes a governance logic based on continuous improvement, transparency, and shared learning, thus strengthening sustainability and innovation in university contexts. In addition, incorporating an action agenda (Table 2) provides concrete guidelines that can be adapted to various institutional realities, making it a valuable resource for decision-makers and improvement teams.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research

This research has limitations that need to be recognised. First, the literature review was mainly conducted through Google Scholar, without systematically including other specialised databases (such as Scopus, Web of Science, or ERIC), which could have expanded the coverage and diversity of relevant sources.

Second, the five analytical dimensions of the model were identified through inductive reasoning and a narrative synthesis of the literature. While this method offers interpretive depth and captures conceptual nuances, it may also reduce the reproducibility of the model in different contexts or studies due to the lower level of standardisation in the analysis process. Additionally, the criteria for including and excluding sources did not follow strict parameters, as in systematic reviews, but rather employed a flexible selection process to include significant contributions on organisational learning within management and higher education. This methodological flexibility, although aligned with the narrative approach used, could introduce a particular selection bias.

Third, the proposed model mainly concentrates on the internal processes that shape organisational learning within higher education institutions. External networks—such as inter-institutional alliances and links with territorial, governmental, or productive actors—that could play a vital role in generating knowledge, innovation, and organisational capacities were not explicitly considered. Including this relational dimension would enable a more comprehensive understanding of organisational learning in interconnected and dynamic contexts.

Despite these limitations, the adopted theoretical–propositional approach makes a valuable contribution to the study of organisational learning in higher education, as it offers a conceptual framework that can be validated, refined, or expanded through empirical research. Case studies, comparative research, or longitudinal analyses could provide evidence regarding the model’s applicability, effectiveness, and adaptability within specific institutional contexts.