mikko ruohonen, university of tampere 1 networked economy – effects on organisational development...

Mikko Ruohonen, University of Tampere 1

Networked Economy – effects on organisational development and the

role of education

“Engineering the Knowledge Society” – a side forum to WSIS, Geneva, Switzerland

11-12 December 2003


Challenge of ”e-thinking”Challenge of ”e-thinking”

e-business

e-work

e-learning

Engineering challenge?


E-business evolutionE-business evolution

Heading for balanced development of business, use of ICT and organisation


Evolution of I(C)T potentialEvolution of I(C)T potential

Management mantras

Focus and applications of ICT

Competitiveness

Matrix management

Mass production

Network mgmt

Core processes

Knowledge mgmt

1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000

basic IT

managementreporting

customersystems

logisticssystems

network/websystems

knowledgesystems

2005


Cross-organisational Cross-organisational challenge!challenge!

• Competitive advantage derived from interorganisational settings

• Across organisational borders demands new structures, also IS/ICT infrastructures

• Beyond value chain -thinking


Value chainsValue chains

• Value chain thinking fits well with industrial organizations• Logistics is a good example (use of EDI…)• Problems when service or networking business emerge• You need something more than order-deliver

management


Typical value chainTypical value chain

• Cost- and functionally driven• Not much feedback loops• Service aspects missing?

Suppliers Firm Customers

Typical systems: EDI-based, ordering- and product support systems


Extended enterpriseExtended enterprise

• Added value search through outsourcing and alliances

Suppliers Firm Customers

Outsourcers

Alliances


Knowledge business Knowledge business networks!networks!

• Future business on knowledge network model which uses the learning nodes and transfer of knowledge

• Knowledge networks define their rules, use their knowledge portals and compete against other communities

• “Competitive advantage of knowledge networks is created through the clustering process in which two or more organizations with complementary competencies begin to compete against other competitors’ clusters having similar interests”


Organisational evolutionOrganisational evolution

• Relationship and learning based business• Knowledge networks demands new qualities both in

organizations, managers and employees

Customer interface


How to derive benefits?How to derive benefits?

• Invest in the specific relationship of partners i.e. beware of relation-specific assets,

• Foster knowledge-sharing routines and processes between partners,

• Combine complementary resources which supplement core competencies of each partner,

• Make effective governance of the collaboration relationship.

(Dyer & Singh 1998)


E-work evolutionE-work evolution

Emphasizing local experiences and communities of practice


Communities of practiceCommunities of practice

• ”Learning cannot be designed, it can only be designed for – that is, facilitated or frustrated” (Wenger 1998)

• People empowered via a participative development process with various discussion forums (either technical or not)

• Dialogue focusing on real practices/experiences of people, and facilitates spontaneous processes

• Emphasis on mutual learning and the local theories of people, not on teaching ”out-of-context”


Boundary crossingBoundary crossing

• Communities of practice working together share common practices

• Bridges across practices can take other forms– multimembership: people to act as knowledge brokers – boundary objects: shared documents, business processes,

objectives, schedules • Boundary objects can accomodate multiple perspectives,

boundary activities, interactions and practices that force people of various communities to rub their experiences and perspectives and technology platforms that make communication across boundaries easier.

(Brown & Duguid 2001)(Brown & Duguid 2001)


Design elements for CoPsDesign elements for CoPs

• Community of practice; three elements (Wenger 2000): – what domain it is about - the domain of knowledge gives

members a sense of joint enterprise and brings them together,– how it functions as a community – the relationships of mutual

engagement bind members together into a social entity, and – what capability its practice has produced – the shared

repertoire of communal resources that members have developed over time through their mutual engagement, e.g. routines, lessons learned, sensibilities, artifacts, standards, tools, stories, vocabulary and styles.


Degree of stewardship

Definition Typical challenges

Sharing Offering a social structure for the exchange of knowledge, tips, and lessons learned and for help on problems

Haphazard knowledge development and lack of continuity

Proactive Taking charge of developing a shared capability, establishing best practices, actively pursuing a learning agenda, and involving all the relevant participants

Finding the energy and time to take responsibility for knowledge

Strategic Widely recognized and self-consciously central to the success of the organization and involved in strategic decisions

Short-term pressures, blindness of success, smugness, elitism, exclusion

Transformative Capable of redefining its environment and the direction, structure, or culture of the organization

Relating to the rest of the organization, acceptance, managing boundaries

Table 1. Degrees of stewardship (Wenger 1999, 2000)


Evolution of learning/education Evolution of learning/education studiesstudies

Towards understanding of crossing processes of learning in organisations


Evolution of learning Evolution of learning studiesstudies

• Crossing individual, group, organisation (Crossan & Lane 1999), even inter-organisation boundaries

• Emphasis on informal, flexible, blended learning• Development of workplace learning with connection

to knowledge creation studies • Processes to foster

– cognitive, operational, social and reflective processes– Järvinen & Poikela (2002) workplace learning model


CE= Concrete ExperienceRO= Reflective Observation

Ac= Abstact ConceptualizationAE= Active Experimentation

SE= Sharing of ExperienceRC= Reflecting Collectivity

CK= Combining New KnowledgeLD= Learning by Doing

IF= Intuition FormationII= Intuition Interpretation

IK= Integration of Interpreted Knowledge

KI= Knowledge Institutionalization

Organization

Group

Individual

The process model of learning at workJärvinen & Poikela (2001)

KIIK

II

SERC

LDCK

IF

CE

AC

RO

AE


Cognitive processes and ICTCognitive processes and ICT

• Work/learning tasks easy to outwrite, schedule, program, productize

• Explicit knowledge (memos, pp-shows etc) moves quickly through the intranet

• Different ICT-tools (even too many) largely used

• However, information overflow may inhibit knowledge transfer


Operative processes and Operative processes and ICTICT

• Clear focus for ICT development due to cost-effectiveness reasons (

• Quality, productivity, lead times hunted• Project management, budgeting, planning,

quality control• Streamlining operational learning processes by

help-functions and on-line support


Social processes and ICTSocial processes and ICT

• increased turbulence; less social events and face-to-face ideas, planning too rational

• brainstorming, group planning, work conferences, ba’s (ref Nonaka) diminish

• busy managers do not wander around, do not discuss or listen

• clever combination of multiple learning channels: chats, discussion forums, group systems and face-to-face processes


Reflective processes and Reflective processes and ICTICT

• projects, issues, events not reflected, just go for the next project? i.e. need for expertise forums!

• no professional reflection or organisational memory cumulation i.e. knowledge portals need to be alive

• quality management helps but innovations need time, learning by mistakes is not productive

• supervisors don´t have time to share leadership knowledge• environment (ba, space) is needed, in which you support

people to share, use and combine their knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, Cook & Brown 1999)


Evolution of e-learning and Evolution of e-learning and e-traininge-training

Nicholson (2003)


E-learning might miss E-learning might miss expertise developmentexpertise development

Nicholson 2003


CasesCases

Already on the road!


Digital competence Digital competence development; case development; case

TietoenatorTietoenator• Competition caused by the globalization of markets• “Digital competence development” as a continuum,

from separate instruction-centered training events to a longer-term and effective learning strategy supported by digital means

• Why expensive and fragmented learning environments if the corporate intranet is already usable as a delivery channel?

Alamäki & Mäkinen 2003


Learning chain Learning chain management?management?

• In developing digital learning solutions, many managers and trainers seldom separate the development of supply-side (software and courses) from the development of demand-side (new learning practices and motivation)

• Learning solutions can be “technically right”, but they may fail to answer the actual questions of learners


Case NokiaCase Nokia

• Concept of ”n-learning”– network of devices and people– both fixed and wireless

• Nokia vision: Mobile phones and mobility are changing people's way of working, communication and learning

• Differences between formal learning, informal learning and way of working will diminish


Nokia focus 2003-2004Nokia focus 2003-2004

• Info push– prematerials, tests, comments, templates

• SMS/MMS push and pull– informal, adhoc learning, Q&A functionality

• The use of recorded audio push and pull– sharing best practices

• Context awareness in m-learning (forthcoming)• Collaboration (forthcoming)

(Vänskä 2003, see http://www.pori.tut.fi/etrain)


Nokia m-learning projectsNokia m-learning projects

• Product quick guide for Nokia resellers– Infopush

• Questions & Answers on environmental issues– SMS/MMS application

• Learning solution for environmental issues– one part of blended learning solution, Q&A

• Audio service center – audio clips for best practice sharing


Engineering knowledge Engineering knowledge society success?society success?

• Balanced view of ”e-thinking”• Context-awareness, informal learning, CPs• Explication of learning processes• Multiple learning/training channels needed• Strategy-based, not just ”technical quick fix”• Evaluation of effects up to interorganisational

boundaries


More info?More info?

• IFIP Conference on ”E-training Practices for Professional Organisations”– http://www.pori.tut.fi/etrain– Later: Nicholson, Thompson, Ruohonen, Multisilta

(forthcoming) Proceedings of the IFIP Conference on ”E-training Practices for Professional Organisations” Kluwer Academic Publishers

– Professor Mikko Ruohonen, [email protected]• THANK YOU!

mikko ruohonen, university of tampere 1 networked economy – effects on organisational development...

Documents