Fortunately (for me ;-) several recent threads have begun to converge around
the topic of my current thesis research. Your contributions have provided
me with remarkable insights, and some quite useful references. In the
current message, I have attempted to clip and share relevant passages from
these threads, in the interest of making these connections explicit as a
means for validating my synthesis of your offerings.
Nancy Dixon (1994) has defined organizational learning as "the intentional
use of learning processes at the individual, group and system level to
continuously transform the organization in a direction that is increasingly
satisfying to its stakeholders". Essentially, I plan to demonstrate that
Communities of Practice, enabled by collaborative technologies, are critical
to the acceleration of _The Organizational Learning Cycle_ (the title of her
remarkable book).
In a very real way, the LO list connects so many of us as such a community
of practice, accelerating our own cycles of learning. I hope you find the
following compilation useful for your learning, and would welcome direct
inquiries (jamesr@attsolhq.attmail.com) regarding further details on our
continuing research.
>>>>> Communities of Practice <<<<<
Dave Pollard writes (12-Aug) in LO9052:
>Only about a half-dozen times in my 20+ year professional career has a
>business "concept" really struck me as a revelation, as something with
>lasting and important value. The latest has been "Communities of
>Practice", the concept (I believe) developed by Xerox Parc's IRL...
{good stuff snipped}
>(This) raises a host of (I think) important new questions about
>organizational development & learning,
>
> (1) How can management encourage this self-organization and maximize its
>fruitfulness and efficiency, without inadvertently interfering with it and
>destroying the communities of practice?
> (2) If (as seems logical) these communities should be empowered to
>self-educate its membership, how can this be done, and how can (or should)
>the community's knowledge and learning be cross-pollinated to the
>organization's other communities?
{more good stuff snipped}
Michael McMaster responds(14-Aug) in LO9134
>I suggest that not until we accept that self-organisation (I prefer terms
>such as natural organisation and intelligence) is the existing condition
>will we become effective in the area of management and organisation in the
>information/knowledge age.
>
>The question of greater interest, and I think power, is, "How can we
>influence self-organisation so it is congruent, and how can we become more
>powerful in our excercise of this capacity?" Or maybe, "How can we
>organise so that the self-organisation is constantly developing its
>intelligence?"
Of note, is the following quote in Michael's signature file: ;-)
>Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle
> of the universe. Heraclitus
While Van Maanen & Barley, Schein and others have previously published
research on the topic of "occupational communities", John Seely Brown and
his colleagues at Xerox+s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) were perhaps the
first to identify the significance of these communities of practice for
organizational learning.
Conducting field research during the 1980s (cited in the recent Thomas
Stewart article), an anthropologist discovered patterns of behavior among a
community of copier repair technicians which led to shared learning. Since
this discovery, Xerox has set about enabling this "community learning" with
collaborative technologies. Initially, two-way radio headsets were used to
enable an ongoing conversation among the community members. However, the
shared learning was not captured for later reference using this technology.
More recently, the implementation of a shared repository of ideas and
insights, called Eureka, has become a form of institutional memory for this
community of practice...a "knowledge repository" of sorts...
>>>>> Knowledge repository/"Intranet" <<<<<
Bill Hobler (28-May?)
>In my opinion most organizational learning is stored in the minds of its
>people. Since the knowledge is thus distributed it is essential that the
>people feel free to share the knowledge with each other. They should be
>able to form alliances to deal with business processes or issues and use
>their collective knowledge effectively.
>
Bill Hobler again, (30-May)
>I am also of a mind that there is so much captured in the minds of
>perceptive people that no one can have a full blown concept of a whole
>organization. Therefore, my dilemma is how to find the people to bring
>together, and how to trigger the right memories to cause the needed
>insights from each of them to arrive at the best solution to a complex
>business problem?
Nancy Dixon (1994) offers a theoretical framework of individual learning
which includes "meaning structures linked with other meaning structures to
form networks." Perhaps it is also possible to "connect" our individual
meaning structures, thus forming collective meaning structures which become
the basis for organizational learning.
The ability to connect all members of a community of practice would
(theoretically) make the meaning structures of these individuals accessible
to all members of the community. In this way, it may be possible to bring
the "right" people together, "trigger the right memories to cause the needed
insights from each of them to arrive at the best solution to a complex
business problem."
Several postings in this thread would seem to support the importance of this
possibility:
Valdis Krebs writes (Jun 6):
>Herb Simon, Nobel Prize laureate[Economics], was asked how he seemed to
>know so much about a wide variety of topics. His colleague was truly
>amazed, he had never met anyone with such broad knowledge. Herb smiled,
>and answered, "Oh that's easy, I keep my knowledge in my network of
>friends and colleagues" He simply knew which expert to go to when.
>
>Remember the age old question, "Is it who you know or what you know[that
>leads one to success]?" The answer to the question is... YES! -- WHAT you
>know depends on WHOM you know!
{snip}
>Also keep track of the emergent groups in the organization -- the
>communities of practice [IRL] where 'learning takes place'.
Valdis again on Jun 8:
>By belonging to a community an individual could learn new things and have
>access to a pool of unwritten/implicit knowledge [my guess is that much of
>this complex knowledge could not be made explicit and written down --
>they learned in the apprenticeship mode]
James Ray (11-Aug) on the related topic of Data Warehousing (LO9022):
>The concepts of "association" and/or "filters" is perhaps what
>distinguishes a "data warehouse" from an "information" or even
>"knowledge-base". The context for data/information and the associative
>linkages which are created within the mind(s) of the individual(s)
>reviewing the data/information lead to the creation of new knowledge.
>
>Indeed, it is also possible that the concept of "shared associations"
>represented by various websites are indeed "schema based upon the
>generative (collective) mind" of individuals with access to the World Wide
>Web...with the capabilities of web-browsers, we have potential access
>to these worldwide "schema" and are thus able to "associate" all sorts of
>information and knowledge previously unavailable to us as individuals,
>constrained by the limitations of time and space. IMHO, this greatly
>accelerates the learning cycle and permits individuals (organizations?
>societies?) to learn rapidly through the use of such technologies.
David J. Skyrme (2-Jun)
>NetMap...shows you all the connects that people make in a diagramatic
>manner. You start with a questionnaire asking them who they go to for
>different types of information, and by colour coding the links for
>differet types, some interesting patterns emerge - most of which tell you
>that the formal organisation has been completely misdesigned!!
Perhaps the formal organization has *not* been designed to promote shared
learning (amen!). However, the best formal organization for interfacing
with the organization's environment (especially customers) may *not* be the
best organization to support organizational learning. Rather, it may be
more appropriate to supplement the formal organization with communities of
practice, which transcend geographic and formal organizational boundaries.
These communities of practice may in fact represent informal networks...
>>>>> Informal Networks <<<<<
Ben Compton (Jun 6)
>It seems to me that informal networks are rather serendipitous, and,
>often, inconsistent (they exist when there is a need for them to exist).
>Subsequently, I'm not sure how it is possible to deliberately define an
>informal network, and, then consciously and effectively protect its
>existence.
>
>However, if someone on this list has any ideas on how to define and
>protect an informal network, I'd be very interested. There's no
>question such a structure plays an important role in an organization.
Valdis Krebs has demonstrated (with several postings) her expertise in the
identification and support of such informal networks. As an internal OD
consultant, I have also been involved in the cultivation of such communities
of practice through the use of collaborative technologies (mailing lists,
intranets, etc.) and other structural enhancements. AT&T is currently
conducting research with the MIT Center for Organizational Learning to
discover how best to cultivate such "knowledge communities".
Importantly, I also share Bill Hobler's view that such communities of
practice may also appeal (for many) to an individual's desire to become a
member of something larger than themselves. To what extent does the
membership of the LO list represent such a community?
>>>>> Communities, a Value? <<<<<
Bill Hobler writes (9-July) in LO8369
>Youth gangs, professional associations, political parties... this list,
>are all manifestations of communities of people gathering and contributing
>to the community.
{snip}
>My logic then leads to a practical limit on a learning community of about
>130 people. An extension of this logic is that organizations of more than
>130 people should consist of several overlapping learning communities.
Hmmmmmm...a practical limit of 130 people. Rick, how large is the current
subscribed membership to LO?
[Temporary host's note: There are about 1740 people subscribed as of tonight.
-- Johanna (jr@world.std.com)]
Is it possible that the LO list does "consist of several overlapping
learning communities"? Do the various threads represent an attempt to
fragment the overall community so that we can effectively participate in
smaller communities? I'm not certain...
My apologies for the lengthy post, but I wanted to gather so many of your
insights and ideas into a single record. I also sincerely hope the
synthesis of these postings has been useful, and is an "accurate"
representation of the postings of individual contributors. I'd welcome
corrections and/or clarifications if I have inappropriately clipped comments
out of context, and I would very much appreciate your continued
participation in this integrated thread.
All the best,
--
James Ray
---------------------------------------------
AT&T Solutions Voice: 202-414-3905
Organizational Learning Fax: 202-414-3949
Washington, D.C. jamesr@attsolhq.attmail.com
"Without retention, infancy is perpetual" -- Santayana
--AMS!SOLUTIONS3!jamesr@attsolhq.attmail.com (Ray, James)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>