Peter Senge's work was enhanced several researchers to encompass the broad perspective of the learning organization. Hämäläinen and Saarinen enhanced Senge's system thinking to system intelligence in which a hidden competence in human action and organizational life was discovered. Together they enhanced system thinking to system intelligence whereby they developed a holistic approach to, and proposing that the individual operates within their context with a greater or lesser degree of intelligence (Hämäläinen & Saarinen, 2007). Their research was drawn heavily from Peter Senge work of system thinking.
Senge in the Fifth Discipline says that system thinking was the key to creating learning organizations and therefore our notion of treating as discrete entities comes in a loss of two things that is the ability to see the whole and the capability to foresee the consequences that action in one area will have in another in the organization (Hämäläinen & Saarinen, 2007). We should however note that when system thinking focuses on an objective modeling and the making of the learning organization, system intelligence has a more personal emphasis.
Hämäläinen and Saarinen realized that there is a link between Senge's personal mastery and system thinking. Hämäläinen & Saarinen (2007) indicated that "people with a high level personal mastery are able to reflect on what they want and where they are relative to what they want; the gap between this vision and reality Senge terms as creative tension" (p. 240). In the case of Hämäläinen and Saarinen that instinctive ability to see beyond the surface to deep structure and the individual's ability to take personal responsibility for their actions in the system as they acknowledge their interconnectedness with it means that system intelligence is system thinking having become an integral part of a person's personal mastery.
According to Marsick & Watkins (1999) sculpting requires artistic judgment as well as rigorous knowledge and skill in order to make sense of the emergent design. Peter Senge's existing approach was created, and sustained by Marsick and Watkins to foster this capacity. Marsick & Watkins (1999) indicated that most models of the learning organization use the system thinking perspective popularized by Senge in the year 1990. Marsick and Watkins pushed Senge's perspective further because they believed organizations profit from taking a very wide view of their surrounding environment.
The research done by Marsick and Watkins enhances Peter Senge's work by suggesting that organizations should seek to balance work and family life. Marsick & Watkins (1999) noted that "organizations should support community and educational initiative that build good relationships with the present and future workforce" (p. 5). They also believed that learning organization was a complex innovation and therefore major partners within and outside the organization should collaborate to guide the whole process. This implies that they should do so in the context of a dynamic, open-systems framework that keeps the entire system in touch with the learning organization.
In their further research of Peter Senge's work of learning organization, Marsick & Watkins (1999) established that learning must be seen as an adaptive capacity that aids business goals. In their research, Marsick & Watkins (1999) indicated that learning requires an assessment of the infrastructure to decide how structure, processes and practices currently support systems-level learning. Marsick and Watkins advocated that interventions will certainly vary by the size of the organization and the unit of focus. In order to enhance Senge's work of learning organization, Marsick and Watkins say that the level of influence and authority of the prime movers behind the initiative will affect the degree to which change agents can take risks in the whole process.
In the Fifth Discipline, Senge explains why organizational change has been proved difficult and at the same time how firms can effectively implement change initiatives. On the other hand Marsick & Watkins (1999) noted that we should think that facilitators advocate for change towards learning organization dimensions, guide implementation, and systematically learn from the change process itself. Unlike in Senge's perspective in which change was perceived as a challenge, Marsick and Watkins noted that it is important to create a climate for implementation which should encompass rewards for implementing learning organization ideas, fair consequences for not implementing them and the required resources to support implementation. They noted that the success is dependent on keeping the process congruent with the values of the learning organization.
Wenger (1999) enhanced Peter Senge's work of learning organization by indicating that in the majority of organizations, learning should not be province of the training department alone but also encompass other stakeholders. He therefore says that firms should come up with learning schemes that extract requirements, descriptions, artifacts and other elements out of practice, transform them into institutional artifacts and then redeploy them in reified form (Wenger, 1999). Wenger places emphasis on learning through finding leverage points to build on learning opportunities offered by practice. He also enhances Peter Senge's work by indicating that organizations should engage communities in the design of their practice as a place of learning.
In addition, Wenger says that learning should be aligned with the goals of the organization. His research indicates that the whole concept depends critically on the allegiance of participants. Wenger therefore looks beyond the organizational context and therefore not being formal entities, they are fundamental organizational assets even when they stretch beyond its boundaries (Wenger, 1999). Wenger's expanded Senge's work by indicating that "an organization's ability to deepen and renew its learning depends on fostering or at the very least not impeding the formation, development, and transformation of communities of practice, old and new" (1999, p. 253).
These theories do not underpin or oppose Senge's thesis. Some of the theories have complemented Senge's work through support and developing new ways of facilitating the process of learning organization. For example Wenger noted that boundaries reflect the fact that people and communities are always engaged in learning and that learning creates bonds hence they are a sign of depth (Wenger, 1999). Wenger expounds on the aspect of learning organization by saying that one should anticipate problems of coordination, understand issues of miscommunication, and also expect changes as people and objects journey across the social landscape within a given organization.
Peter Senge's System Thinking is largely seen as a technical academic theory while Hämäläinen and Saarinen System Intelligence place the individual firmly within the system and firmly within real life. Hämäläinen & Saarinen (2007) noted that "both theories approach people and their environment as interconnected and interdependent" (p. 241). Both system thinking and system intelligence see the world as composed of systems and want to examine these as whole entities. Hämäläinen & Saarinen (2007) also indicated that Senge seeks to teach managers to reframe their problems and rather than blame an external cause, understand that they and their problems are part of a single system which requires analysis.
In conclusion Walsh & Sattes (2005) says that the emergent focus on learning organization in the private sector heralded by the 1990 publication of Peter Senge had a real impact on professional learning in schools. The learning architecture of organizations should therefore be composed of both communities and boundaries. From Senge's work, research has been done to ensure that they attain a learning community where teachers work together collegially, around a shared goals related to student achievement, and conduct open and honest conservations which in the future will be transferred in organizations.