Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations [1st ed. 2020] 978-3-030-23996-1, 978-3-030-23997-8

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xiii
Front Matter ....Pages 1-1
What Is Organizational Learning? (Kong Bieng Chuah, Kris M. Y. Law)....Pages 3-14
Organizational Learning for Value Creation (Kris M. Y. Law, Shuang Geng)....Pages 15-24
Factors in Organizational Learning (Kris M. Y. Law, Chris R. Cao)....Pages 25-34
Organizational Learning Process as DELO (Kris M. Y. Law, Kong Bieng Chuah)....Pages 35-49
Front Matter ....Pages 51-51
Project Based Action Learning as the Vehicle (Kris M. Y. Law, Kong Bieng Chuah)....Pages 53-60
Setting for a PAL Driven OL (Kris M. Y. Law, Kong Bieng Chuah, Chris R. Cao)....Pages 61-73
Knowledge in PAL (Kris M. Y. Law, Shuang Geng)....Pages 75-86
Front Matter ....Pages 87-87
Stage 0—Preparing a PAL Driven OL (K. F. Kwong, Y. C. Chau)....Pages 89-101
Stage 1—Starting the PAL (C. K. Cheung)....Pages 103-110
Stage 2—Facilitating and Evaluating PAL (Chris R. Cao, Kris M. Y. Law)....Pages 111-119
Stage 3—Closing PAL and PAL Knowledge (Kris M. Y. Law, Shuang Geng)....Pages 121-127
Postscripts: 16-Years Journey of PAL, What Is Next? (Kris M. Y. Law)....Pages 129-133
Back Matter ....Pages 135-166

Citation preview

Kris M. Y. Law · Kong Bieng Chuah Editors

Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations

Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations

Kris M. Y. Law Kong Bieng Chuah •

Editors

Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations

123

Editors Kris M. Y. Law School of Engineering Deakin University Geelong, Australia

Kong Bieng Chuah Department of Systems Engineering City University of Hong Kong Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

ISBN 978-3-030-23996-1 ISBN 978-3-030-23997-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8

(eBook)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This book is about a tried and tested way of organizational learning which we called Project Action Learning or PAL since its inception in the early 2000s. It is the culmination of the learning the authors have collectively achieved through years of case-based action research of PAL implementation in real industrial environments. The authors are most thankful to the collaborations and cooperations of the industrial enterprises and people who participated in this long-running longitudinal research that spanned over 16 years. This book may not be quite the “step-by-step how to do it” guidebook, but we hope it serves a useful reference for practitioners of organizational learning and development. A well-run modern organization has in place operating systems that include staff training and development. This may fulfil the needs of single-loop learning that will help to maintain its existing operations. But it is often inadequate to help an organization today to remain competitive let alone to raise its capability to cope with changes in technology and environment. Hence, we have seen the birth of the concepts of organizational learning and learning organization over three decades ago. Much has since been written but proven cases of real implementation are still few and less than enlightening. For a rational person, it is commonly known that improvement starts with the acknowledgement of a problem. Knowledge is gained, and learning is achieved through the process of analysing and solving it. The same could apply to an organization. However, an organization is only superficially an organism by analogy. It is invariably made up of individuals with different aspirations and expectations driven by personal goals which may not be always aligned with the organizational goals. Moreover, we also know that effective learning does not happen all the time, be it in an individual or an organization, especially the latter. The intrinsic or extrinsic motivations needed to overcome and sustain individual learning inertia are relatively easier to come by. There are many individual lifelong learners in any era and in every society. The same cannot be said of organizational learning and learning organizations.

v

vi

Preface

To affect an organization’s learning capability, particularly with regard to double-loop learning, we must re-mould an organization’s long-standing, traditional, run-of-the-mill staff training and development practices. We must find a way to instil action learning. Small groups of staff working on self-initiated meaningful projects are the basis of this action learning. This is the PAL way described in this book. We must have a visible organizational learning strategy that will overcome organizational defensive mechanism of individual staff and who will, in turn, be persuaded to embrace the PAL way. Our experience suggests the PAL-driven organizational learning can be introduced and propagated in a wave-like manner. To complement this PAL-driven organizational learning strategy, we must put in place performance measures and incentives that will motivate individuals to initiate and take up such action learning that would be aligned with organizational needs and goals. We must have an overarching mechanism and resources in place that will provide facilitation and support to sustain the wave-like implementation of PAL-driven organizational learning. Just as importantly, we must have an organizational management and information system that will support organizational learning knowledge accumulation, dissemination and re-use. These are what we call the four pillars of PAL. The PAL story is essentially about the building up of these four PAL pillars. We believe PAL is a proven vehicle that will take an organization down the path of organizational learning. The wave-like implementation over time will pave the way towards the ideals of a learning organization. Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

Kong Bieng Chuah

Contents

Part I

Fundamentals of Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations

1

What Is Organizational Learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kong Bieng Chuah and Kris M. Y. Law

3

2

Organizational Learning for Value Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kris M. Y. Law and Shuang Geng

15

3

Factors in Organizational Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kris M. Y. Law and Chris R. Cao

25

4

Organizational Learning Process as DELO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kris M. Y. Law and Kong Bieng Chuah

35

Part II

Building a Learning Organization

5

Project Based Action Learning as the Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kris M. Y. Law and Kong Bieng Chuah

53

6

Setting for a PAL Driven OL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kris M. Y. Law, Kong Bieng Chuah and Chris R. Cao

61

7

Knowledge in PAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kris M. Y. Law and Shuang Geng

75

Part III

Setting the PAL Driven LO 89

8

Stage 0—Preparing a PAL Driven OL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. F. Kwong and Y. C. Chau

9

Stage 1—Starting the PAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 C. K. Cheung

vii

viii

Contents

10 Stage 2—Facilitating and Evaluating PAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Chris R. Cao and Kris M. Y. Law 11 Stage 3—Closing PAL and PAL Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Kris M. Y. Law and Shuang Geng 12 Postscripts: 16-Years Journey of PAL, What Is Next? . . . . . . . . . . 129 Kris M. Y. Law Appendix A: Forms of PAL Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Appendix B: Project Stakeholder-Task-File Triads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Appendix C: Role Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Appendix D: Readiness Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Appendix E: OLSS Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Appendix F: PAL Application Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Appendix G: F/W/C PAL Evaluation Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the associate professor in engineering management and education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University, Finland. She obtained her Ph.D. in organizational learning and M.Phil. in machining processes as well a first degree in industrial engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. She undertook a postdoctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in organizational learning and development (OLD), technological innovation and entrepreneurship (TIE), engineering education and smart industrial initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting Project Action Learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations. Her publications include books, chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed).

ix

x

Editors and Contributors

Dr. Kong Bieng Chuah is Associate Professor of Systems Engineering and Engineering Department, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. He is a core faculty member of the engineering doctorate, M.Sc. engineering management and B.Eng. industrial engineering and engineering management programmes. His current teaching and research focus on project management and project-based organizational learning. He is a consultant in project management and organizational learning and conducts project management courses and workshops for industries. In his earlier years, he was a mechanical engineer with expertise in engineering metrology and surface roughness characterization. He advised on engineering measurement problems and calibration set-ups.

Contributors Chris R. Cao Crest View Technology Investment Ltd, Hong Kong SAR, China Y. C. Chau City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong C. K. Cheung Acrathon Precision Technologies, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong Kong Bieng Chuah Department of System Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong Shuang Geng College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China K. F. Kwong PuraPharm International (H.K.) Ltd., Hong Kong, Hong Kong Kris M. Y. Law School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

List of Figures

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 8.1 8.2

Fig. 8.3

The body of knowledge in OL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deutero learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The SECI knowledge creation process by Nonaka . . . . . . . . . Knowledge creation system architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge recommender system architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . The DELO organizational learning process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levels of learning and influencing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The synergy of collective learning in organization . . . . . . . . . The process of organizational learning and corresponding “influencers” (Law and Chuah 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical model for the study of organizational learning . . The seven forces of learning model (Jashapara 2003) . . . . . . Project-team action learning framework (PAL) . . . . . . . . . . . Setting PAL goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning within PAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intra- and inter-learning in PAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAL and supporting environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LOFT facilitation in PAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A problem driven OL facilitation approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A PAL facilitation model for PAL driven OL . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge development in the intra-project learning process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge development at Inter-project learning . . . . . . . . . Project task flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KM activities and project triad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KM and “project evaluation and selection” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAL integrated with knowledge-based decision making . . . . Steps for realizing the PAL supporting pillars . . . . . . . . . . . . Multi-level system modelling of the OLSS (Kwong et al. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual process model for OLSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

5 10 17 18 21 26 27 27

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

36 37 40 55 56 56 57 62 63 66 66

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

77 78 80 80 81 83 92

.. ..

94 96 xi

xii

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

List of Figures

8.4 8.5 8.6 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 10.1 10.2 10.3

Fig. 11.1 Fig. 12.1 Fig. 12.2 Fig. 12.3 Fig. 12.4

Schematic diagram of the initiation phase (1–2 weeks) . . . . . Schematic diagram of the facilitation phase (12–14 weeks) . . Schematic diagram of the evaluation phase (*10 weeks) . . . Project initiation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The PAL project life cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wave-like approach of PAL implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supporting resources at various project phases . . . . . . . . . . . Enabling in-depth dialogue in PAL teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAL reflection flow chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The process of using the F/W/C based OL evaluation instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OLSS functional modules and PAL stages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The early stage of PAL development and implementation (i.e. 2002–2005) (from Law and Chuah 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . PAL-driven OL journey in the case company from 2000 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAL-driven OL journey in the case company between 2011 and 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the four pillars progress in the PAL journey (2000–2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

96 98 98 104 106 106 109 114 117

.. ..

118 123

..

130

..

131

..

131

..

132

. . . . . . . . .

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 7.1 Table 8.1 Table Table Table Table Table Table

8.2 10.1 10.2 11.1 11.2 11.3

Fields in the F/W/C driven PAL performance model . . . . . Comparisons and contrasts between three types of facilitators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluations of PAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project evaluation perspectives, criteria and sub-criteria . . . Roles of management and facilitation team in readiness check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sub-modules involved in different PAL phases . . . . . . . . . . Ground rules for PAL meetings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAL reflection framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post PAL review tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New knowledge created in PAL process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New knowledge storage in PAL process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

45

.. .. ..

65 68 84

. . . . . . .

93 99 115 116 122 125 126

. . . . . . .

xiii

Part I

Fundamentals of Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations

Chapter 1

What Is Organizational Learning? Kong Bieng Chuah and Kris M. Y. Law

Abstract Organizational learning (OL) is an expansive and diverse field with influences that involves sociology, psychology, philosophy, business management, and many others disciplines. While there is no one definition to this concept, the concept of organizational learning is commonly described a process of developing, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization. This chapter provides an overview on the various notions of organizational learning, from the different theoretical perspectives. The association of OL and knowledge management (KM) is also discussed.

1.1 Organizational Learning as a Developmental Strategy Business conditions of the nowadays market, are demanding due to the everchallenging market competition and fast pace of technological advancement. The concept of OL and LO has been accepted by organizations keen on developing and creating an environment to support learning, especially the knowledge-oriented organizations (Lynn et al. 2000). Be it an individual or an organization, the ability to make good use of knowledge comes with sufficient level of understanding and experience. Such understanding and experience can only be brought about by a conscious process of learning and application. It is not surprising that many managers, entrepreneurs as well as researchers in the West have been paying increasing attention to the concept and importance of Organizational Learning (OL) and Learning Organization (LO). Since the late 1980s, the concepts of organizational learning (OL) and learning organization (LO) has prospered and have been defined as the process of acquiring, distributing, integrating, and creating information and knowledge within an K. B. Chuah Department of System Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] K. M. Y. Law (B) School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_1

3

4

K. B. Chuah and K. M. Y. Law

organization. Organizational development involves attitudes and mindset changes and the purpose of organizational learning is to adapt to changing environments, adjusting due to uncertain conditions, and improving efficiency. Organization is a place where individuals gather, where a project team or hybrid project-team structure is usually adopted in an LO. The project-based structure is adopted by the whole company or specifically applied to certain units or groups within the organization, where team concept and team performance are highly valued and relied upon. Team learning has been gaining importance as an OL approach, it has been well documented and extensively studied (Flood et al. 2001; Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Meyer 1994; Senge 1990; Teare et al. 2002; Poell and Van der Krogt 2003). Senge (1990) explained that organization or team performance improvement is a result of collective intelligence of an organization or a team, which exceeds the sum of intelligence of individuals.

1.2 Notions of Organizational Learning and Learning Organization The origin of the concentrated study of organizational learning can be back to the late 1970s, when researchers studied OL from a psychological perspective. Key advances in this field include: • Cyert and March (1963) described the adaptation and routines of organizational learning; • Argyris (1978) developed the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning; • Dutton and Thomas (1984) defined learning curves in organizations. The study of OL, thereafter, has focused on different fields, including: collectivity of individual learning; processes or systems; culture or metaphor; knowledge management; continuous improvement. Since the late 80s in the 20th century, the concept of OL and LO has prospered and has been used in various fields, such as: • Organizational learning involves the process of acquiring, distributing, integrating, and creating information and knowledge within an organization (Dixon 1992). • Organizational learning involves attitudes and mindset changes (Smith 1999). • Organizational learning is to adapt to changing environments, adjusting under uncertain conditions, and improving efficiency successfully (Dodgson 1993). Current literature on OL have different focuses, namely, learning motivation, collective or team learning; learning process or system; learning culture; knowledge management, organizational development and continuous improvement (Wang and Ahmed 2003). Besides the different focus areas, OL is also described as “processfocusing” where learning is an “innate, ongoing process” in organizations (Pedler and Aspinwall 1998; Law and Chuah 2015).

1 What Is Organizational Learning?

5

The bodies of knowledge involved in the scope of OL are of various perspectives (Fig. 1.1). These areas are raised from a series of ‘central’ What and How questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

WHAT is OL? WHAT is OL process? WHAT are the factors influencing? HOW can OL be adopted or implemented?

To respond to the above central questions, various focuses in OL study are identified: • the cores constituting the definition of OL: a. the levels of learning b. levels of knowledge and the knowledge process • the processes of OL • the influencing factors • the learning approaches and facilitations.

Process of OL

Levels of learning Influencing factors

Definition of OL

Knowledge Aspect

Fig. 1.1 The body of knowledge in OL

What is OL? What is OL process? What are the influencing factors? How OL can be adopted/implemented?

Learning approach and facilitation

6

K. B. Chuah and K. M. Y. Law

1.2.1 Perspectives of Organizational Learning Much about OL has been studied and written, during the last three decades, on specific subjects such as system dynamics (Senge 1990), action-based learning (Argyris and Schon 1978, 1996; Smith and O’Neil 2003) group process, personal creative process, and collective decision and action (Issacs 1993). Some researchers believed that OL is a natural tendency of an organization fighting to survive (Kim 1993). Other thought that it is not only a form of learning or just a prescribed set of processes in the theory of levels of learning in organizations, but rather a philosophy of organizational development (Argyris and Schon 1996). Over the years, some theories of OL became conceptually more complex and others more specialized. Like, • Senge (1990), who considers OL from a system perspective, • Nonaka (1994) focuses on the interchange of knowledge in organizations. On the other hand, some authors prescribe OL as existing processes involving activities and means that organizations use to organize knowledge with the expectation of a higher level of its usage that lead to greater competitiveness (Fulmer et al. 1998; Pemberton et al. 2001). For these authors, OL is a process by which individuals accumulate and extend knowledge based on their past experiences and their perceptions, share, and propagate it in ways that help an organization to develop (Roth and Kleiner 1998; Lynn et al. 2000; Garratt 1999; Atul and Glen 2001; Örtenblad 2004).

1.2.2 Multi-disciplinary Approach of Organizational Learning There is a wide range of beliefs of thinking about what OL is, how it occurs, and how it is applied and how it influences organization development. Organizational learning is an expansive and diverse field with influences on sociology, psychology, philosophy, business management, and many others disciplines. There is no overarching framework, which cohesively pulls together all theoretical advances into a unified theory. A multi-disciplinary approach is therefore an appropriate way to study the complexity of OL. Organizational learning (OL) is described as a conscious organizational goal driven process, with individuals as the learning agents for the organization. A predominant view of OL is the ‘double loop’ learning concept, which has been shaped by several advances in social sciences and system theories (Argyris and Schon 1978). The essential feature of this primary learning approach was the notion of envisioning. Great emphasis was put on describing the human process of “action learning” through experience via various feedback mechanisms interacting with everyone’s sets of beliefs.

1 What Is Organizational Learning?

7

The organizational learning theory is commonly described a process of developing, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization. One the most influential concepts in the organizational learning theory is the notion that we learn from our mistakes. This idea was developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon, who suggested that learning takes place through the process of detecting and correcting errors. From this perspective, organizational learning occurs as a result of experience and an organization is said to have learned from an experience when there is a change in the organization’s behaviour or performance. The robust use of ideas emanated from system thinking, was clearly expounded in Senge’s five disciplines (Senge 1990). Senge proposed five core disciplines for LO, for which he claimed the five disciplines represents a lifelong body of study and practice for individuals and teams in organizations (Senge 1992). 1. Personal Mastery This discipline of aspiration involves formulating a coherent picture of the results people most desire to gain as individuals (their personal vision), alongside a realistic assessment of the current state of their lives today (their current reality). Learning to cultivate the tension between vision and reality (represented in this icon by the rubber band) can expand people’s capacity to make better choices, and to achieve more of the results that they have chosen. 2. Mental Models This discipline of reflection and inquiry skills is focused around developing awareness of the attitudes and perceptions that influence thought and interaction. By continually reflecting upon, talking about, and reconsidering these internal pictures of the world, people can gain more capability in governing their actions and decisions. 3. Shared Vision This collective discipline establishes a focus on mutual purpose. People learn to nourish a sense of commitment in a group or organization by developing shared images of the future they seek to create (symbolized by the eye), and the principles and guiding practices by which they hope to get there. 4. Team Learning This is a discipline of group interaction. Through techniques like dialogue and skilful discussion, teams transform their collective thinking, learning to mobilize their energies and ability greater than the sum of individual members’ talents. 5. Systems Thinking In this discipline, people learn to better understand interdependency and change, and thereby to deal more effectively with the forces that shape the consequences of our actions. Systems thinking is based upon a growing body of theory about the behaviour of feedback and complexity-the innate tendencies of a system that lead to growth or stability over time.

8

K. B. Chuah and K. M. Y. Law

1.3 Organizational Learning and Knowledge Much of an organization’s knowledge resides in its people, and much of the learning is socially constructed and specific in context. OL has the features of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Learning organizations aim to transform old behaviours and patterns of thinking as well as to improve skill and know-how to adapt to the challenging dynamic environment. Thus, learning involves the linking up of knowledge, know-how systems, structures, and processes (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, 2006). Ideally, employees are willing to learn systematically and intensively. OL occurs as a result of experience and an organization is said to have learned from an experience when there is a change in the organization’s behaviour or performance. The acquired and shared knowledge becomes embedded in the routines and practices through the repeated rounds of experiences by individual members. Organizational knowledge is interpreted, aggregated, and shared at the organizational level in the organization. This is coherent with the concept advocated by action learning, contributing to the central concept of this book, project-based action learning (PAL).

1.4 Individuals in LO Learning does not take place solely within groups in an organization. With emphasis on empowering of individuals to act, action learning therefore fosters OL by allowing effective learning to take place within organizations at both individual and organizational levels (Revans 1982, 1983; Garvin 1994). To facilitate the learning between individuals, team learning is the central issue of concern. The range of OL literature covers development of OL tools to improve team communication such as dialogue, the effect of learning histories, leadership styles and management techniques, the role of organizational goal and strategy and the process of knowledge management etc. OL is a process that needs all the usual functions of management i.e. planning, resourcing, directing, monitoring, evaluation and controlling. For OL to be useful and effective there must be leadership and commitment from the management together with motivation and effort from the individual staff. Most of all, the goal of OL must be clear to everyone. The goal of OL must be seen not only to add value to the development and improvement of the organization but also to benefit every individual staff in some perceivable way.

1 What Is Organizational Learning?

9

1.5 Levels of Learning Within LO Some OL theories treat OL as a conscious organizational goal-driven process, with individuals as the learning agents for the organization (Argyris and Schon 1996; Örtenblad 2004). These emphases of learning at different levels within an organization however, contribute to the elusiveness of the definition of OL (Weick 1991, 1996). The paradox of OL is that it is not merely the sum of individual learning (Argyris and Schon 1978), but the learning at different levels within an organization directed towards some pre-set organizational goal. Distinct approaches to OL, include behavioural learning and cognitive learning (Foil and Lyles 1985; Yeo 2002, 2003, 2006): • Cognitive development is the organizational change that affects the interpretation of events and the shared understanding among organizational members (Daft et al. 1988; Daft and Weick 1984). • Conversely, behavioural development is the new response or action based on the existing interpretations. Argyris and Schon embraced these into their learning theories (1978, 1996) as single-loop learning and the higher level cognitive ‘doubleloop’ learning.

1.5.1 From Single to Double Loop Learning Early research demonstrated a strong emphasis on the role of individual learning in OL. The ‘double-loop’ learning concept, by Argyris and Schon (1978), focuses on the learning-action role of individuals who are interpreting their experiences without addressing the group or cultural dimensions. This ‘double-loop’ learning extends single-loop learning by questioning and modifying underlying concepts. Besides, emphasis was also placed on the human process of “action learning”, i.e. through experience via various feedback mechanisms interacting with everyone’s sets of beliefs. Such learning, then, requires action and feedback, as well as a mindset to change existing beliefs, to apply new insights to improve the organization. Argyris once stated that “Organizational learning is a process of detecting and correcting error. Error is for our purposes any feature of knowledge or knowing that inhibits learning. When the process enables the organization to carry on its present policies or achieve its objectives, the process may be called single loop learning. Single loop learning can be compared with a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and then turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is able to perform this task because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and therefore take corrective action.” Deutero-learning is an even higher level of learning, which involves both the single-loop and double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon 1978). Organizations are

10

K. B. Chuah and K. M. Y. Law

Fig. 1.2 Deutero learning

then more than ad hoc collections of individuals with structured relationships; individual learning and learning in groups become institutionalized as organization artefacts (Hedberg 1981; Shrivastava 1983). Therefore, OL needs to consider the individual, team, and learning at different organizational levels (Crossan et al. 1995) (Fig. 1.2). • Single loop learning: Consists of one feedback loop when strategy is modified in response to an unexpected result (error correction). • Double loop learning: Learning that results in a change in theory-in-use. The values, strategies, and assumptions that govern action are changed to create a more efficient environment. • Deutero-learning: Learning about improving the learning system itself. This is composed of structural and behavioural components which determine how learning takes place.

1.5.2 Generative Learning Senge (1990) termed the higher levels of learning as generative learning. He stated the five disciplines as the core principles for individuals involved in OL: (individual learning) should prepare the individuals for being part of the group (personal mastery) …and to prepare receptivity to others’ learning, experience, questions, and manner of thought (mental models). A viewpoint that is enough for understanding business cycles and system relationships is required … (systems thinking). …guiding purpose and shared values (shared vision).

Individuals are the learning agents of collective learning for learning to occur at organizational level (Mumford 1992; Easterby-Smith 1997). Team learning is the central issue of concern in OL. The insights and innovative ideas occur to

1 What Is Organizational Learning?

11

individuals. However, knowledge generated by the individual does not come to bear on the organization independently.

1.5.3 Multi-level Learning Effective OL requires that ideas are shared, actions taken, with common meanings developed within the organization (Argyris and Schon 1978, 1996; Daft and Weick 1984). Since OL is multi-levelled, that means organizations should pay great attention to the ‘synergy’ of team performance. Beside the types of learning proposed by Argyris and Schon (from single-loop, double-loop to deutero-learning), learning within OL can be simply divided into three levels: • Individual Level Learning: Individual competence, capability, and motivation to undertake the required tasks. • Group Level Learning: Group dynamics and the development of shared understanding. • Organization Level Learning: Alignment between the non-human storehouses of learning including systems, structure, strategy, procedures, and culture, given the competitive environment. The concurrent activities of feed-forward and feed-back are the key elements of strategic renewal within an LO: Feed-forward Learning: Whether and how individual learning feeds forward into group learning and learning at the organizational level (e.g. changes to structure, systems, products, strategy, procedures, culture). Feed-back Learning: Whether and how the learning that is embedded in the organization (e.g. systems, structure, strategy) affects individual and group learning. Learning can take place at different levels, of different forms, within an organization, contributing to the creation of central value—the knowledge in OL.

1.6 Highlights • the concepts of organizational learning (OL) and learning organization (LO) has prospered and have been defined as the process of acquiring, distributing, integrating, and creating information and knowledge within an organization. • Current literature on OL have different focuses, namely, learning motivation, collective or team learning; learning process or system; learning culture; knowledge management, organizational development and continuous improvement. Besides the different focus areas, OL is also described as “process-focusing” where learning is an “innate, ongoing process” in organizations.

12

K. B. Chuah and K. M. Y. Law

• Organizational learning is an expansive and diverse field with influences on sociology, psychology, philosophy, business management, and many others disciplines. There is no overarching framework, which cohesively pulls together all theoretical advances into a unified theory. A multi-disciplinary approach is therefore an appropriate way to study the complexity of OL. • With emphasis on empowering of individuals to act, action learning therefore fosters OL by allowing effective learning to take place within organizations at both individual and organizational levels. • The paradox of OL is that it is not merely the sum of individual learning, but the learning at different levels within an organization, of various forms are directing OL towards the pre-set objectives.

References Argyris C, Schon D (1978, 1996). Organizational learning II: theory, method, and practice. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA Atul G, Glen T (2001) Organizational learning in a high-tech environment: from theory to practice. Ind Manag Data Syst 101(9):502–507 Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE, Djurfeldt L (1995) Organizational learning: dimensions for a theory. Int J Organ Anal 3(4):337–360 Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A behavioural theory of the firm, vol 2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 169–187 Daft RL, Weick KE (1984) Towards a model of organization as interpretation systems. Acad Manag Rev 9(2):284 Daft RL, Sormunen J, Parks D (1988) Chief executive scanning, environmental characteristics and company performance: an empirical study. Strateg Manag J 9(2):123 Dixon NM (1992) Organizational learning: a review of the literature with implications for HRD professionals. Hum Resour Dev Q 3(1):29–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920030105 Dodgson M (1993) Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organ Stud 14(3):375–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069301400303 Dutton JM, Thomas A (1984) Treating progress functions as a managerial opportunity. Acad Manag Rev 9(2):235–247 Easterby-Smith M (1997) Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques. Hum Relat 50(9):1085 Flood P, MacCurtain S, West M (2001) Effective top management teams: an international perspective. Blackhall Publishing, Dublin Foil M, Lyles M (1985) Organizational learning. Acad Manag Rev 10(4):803–813 Fulmer RM, Gibbs P, Keys JB (1998) The second-generation learning organizations: new tools for sustaining competitive advantage. Organ Dyn 27(2):7–20 Garratt B (1999) The learning organization 15 years on: some personal reflections. Learn Organ 6(5):202 Garvin DA (1994) Building a learning organization. Bus Credit 96(1):19 Hedberg B (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn. In: Nystorm P, Starbuck W (eds) Handbook of organizational design. Routledge, London, p 8 (another in Oxford University Press, pp 1–27) Issacs WN (1993) Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning. Org Dyn 22(2):24–39 Katzenbach JR, Smith DK (1993) The discipline of teams. Harvard Bus Rev 71(2):111–120

1 What Is Organizational Learning?

13

Kim DH (1993) The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Manag Rev 35:37–50 Law KMY, Chuah KB (2015) PAL driven organizational learning: theory and practices: a light on learning journey of organizations. Springer, Berlin Lynn GS, Reilly RR, Akgun AE (2000) Knowledge management in new product teams: practices and outcomes. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 47(2):221–231. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.846789 Meyer MA (1994) The dynamics of learning with team production implications for task assignment. Quart J Econ 109(4):1157–1184 Mumford A (1992) Individual and organizational learning: the pursuit of change. Manag Decis 30(6):143 Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5(1):14–37 Nonaka I, Takeuchi K (1995) The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (2006) Organizational knowledge creation. In: Creative management and development, 3rd edn. pp 64–81 Örtenblad A (2004) The learning organization: towards an integrated model. Learn Organ 11(2):129–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470410521592 Pedler M, Aspinwall K (1998) A concise guide to the learning organization. Lemos & Crane, London Pemberton JD, Stonehouse GH, Yarrow DJ (2001) Benchmarking and the role of organizational learning in developing competitive advantage. Knowl Process Manag 8(2):123–135 Poell RF, Van der Krogt FJ (2003) Project-based learning in organizations: towards a methodology for learning in groups. J Workplace Learn 15(5):217–228 Revans RW (1982) The origins and growth of action learning. Chartwell Bratt, Bromley Revans RW (1983) Action learning: the skills of diagnosis. Manag Decis 21(2):46–52. https://doi. org/10.1108/eb001315 Roth G, Kleiner A (1998) Developing organizational memory through learning histories. Organ Dyn 27(2):43–60 Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York, NY Senge P (1992) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York, NY Shrivastava P (1983) A typology of organizational learning systems. J Manag Stud 20(1):7 Smith PAC (1999) The learning organization ten years on: a case study. Learn Organ 6(5):217–224 Smith PAC, O’Neil J (2003) A review of action learning literature 1994–2000: part 1—bibliography and comments. J Workplace Learn 15(2):63–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620310464102 Teare R, Ingram H, Prestoungrange G, Sandelands E (2002) High performance learning at work. Int J Contemp Hospitality Manag 14(7):375–381 Wang CL, Ahmed PK (2003) Organizational learning: a critical review. Learn Organ 10(1):8 Weick KE (1991) The nontraditional quality of organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):116 Weick KE (1996) The role of renewal in organizational learning. Int J Technol Manag 11(7–8):738–746 Yeo R (2002) Learning within organizations: linking the theoretical and empirical perspectives. J Workplace Learn 14(3):109–122 Yeo R (2003) The tangibles and intangibles of organizational performance. Team Perform Manag Int J 9(7/8):199–204 Yeo RK (2006) Building knowledge through action systems, process leadership and organizational learning. Foresight 8(4):34–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680610682021

14

K. B. Chuah and K. M. Y. Law Dr. Kong Bieng Chuah is Associate Professor of Systems Engineering and Engineering Department, City University of Hong Kong. He is a core faculty member of the Engineering Doctorate, M.Sc. Engineering Management and B.Eng. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management programmes. His current teaching and research focus on project management and project based organizational learning. He is a consultant in project management and organizational learning and conducts project management courses and workshops for industries. In his earlier years, Dr. Chuah was a mechanical engineer with expertise in engineering metrology and surface roughness characterisation. He advised on engineering measurement problems and calibration set-ups.

Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the Associate Professor in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland. Dr. Law obtained her Ph.D. in Organization Learning and MPhil in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong. She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Development (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations. Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed).

Chapter 2

Organizational Learning for Value Creation Kris M. Y. Law and Shuang Geng

Abstract Technology and industry growth urge organizations to enhance their knowledge level and creation of new knowledge is highly valued in learning organizations (LO). It is inevitable that knowledge is a critical part in the OL context. This chapter discusses the importance of knowledge creation in an LO and the relevant issues of organizational knowledge, such as knowledge process, learning policy and learning technologies.

2.1 Values and Visions Vision, mission, and values play key parts in the organizational strategy process. Visioning starts the strategy process (Finkelstein et al. 2008), and strategy describes the future picture of the organization and mission with respect to their sets of values and cultures (Shrivastava 1985; Wilson 1992). Organizational values provide norms that specify how members should behave, and how resources should be allocated (Balthazard et al. 2006; Cameron and Quinn 1999; Kleijnen et al. 2009; Bourne and Jenkins 2013). The set of values form the organizational culture which thus also influences strategy formulation (Wilson 1992; Costanza et al. 2015). With strong and clearly defined values, a mission is thus formulated. A mission is generally seen as a tool for disseminating management beliefs and approaches to stakeholders to drive the strategic plans (Toftoy and Chatterjee 2004; Hirota et al. 2010; Salem Khalifa 2012), and can be either strategic or cultural. The strategic type relates to the organizational objectives and provides the vision for strategic planning. The cultural type describes the organizational values and identity regarding to the organizational goals, norms, and behaviour (Campbell 2011; Babnik et al. 2014).

K. M. Y. Law School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] S. Geng (B) College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_2

15

16

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

Specific organizational values and outcomes vary across national cultures (Hofstede 1983, 1994), while the national culture is manifested through a common notion of a shared mentality (Laurent 1986; Rhody and Tang 1995). The impact of national culture pertains to the phenomenon of organizational acculturation which alludes to cultural changes (Selmer and De Leon 1996, 2002).

2.2 Creation of New Knowledge as Values As the environment becomes more and more information-intensive, an organization may become relatively dysfunctional to its business objectives. The traditional methods that were used to solve the “knowledge problem” have reached their limits of effectiveness. Technology and industry growth urge organizations to enhance their knowledge level and creation of new knowledge is highly valued in learning organizations (LO). It is inevitable that knowledge is a critical part in the OL context; attention should be paid to who learns what and where the knowledge is rooted (Leymann 1989; Burgoyne 1999; Bollinger and Smith 2001). The values that characterize culture of firms vary across industries. Firms in the same industry tend to share similar technology and be with less variation in their cultures. There have been debates about the entities of learning, and location of knowledge (Argyris and Schön 1978; Cook and Yanow 1993). According to Dodgson (1993), these knowledge-related issues involve the means the organization uses to disseminate information throughout its ranks, and the ways that the information is processed and stored. This is what recent researchers have stressed: knowledge management. Sets of processes for knowledge creation and models for establishing processes to spur new knowledge were introduced (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Different approaches of knowledge management (from mechanistic, systematic to behaviouristic) are plentiful in the OL literature: • The mechanistic approach concerns the technical and technological issues of knowledge accumulation, storage. • The systematic approach focuses on the rational analytical problem-solving processes, while the behaviouristic approach emphasizes on the change of mindset, the improvement of innovation and creativity (Argyris and Schön 1978). • The behaviouristic approach in knowledge management is often said to have its roots in process re-engineering and change management. It tends to view “knowledge management” as a management issue rather than as a technology issue. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1996) proposed a spiral of knowledge creation (Fig. 2.1) that covers the four modes of knowledge conversion (socialization, externalization, internalization, and combination) and knowledge sharing among the three levels (individual, team and organization). Furthermore, exploration and exploitation of knowledge have also been studied. Exploration is about the use of experimentation and innovation to seek new ideas for application, whereas exploitation is the effective

2 Organizational Learning for Value Creation

17

Fig. 2.1 The SECI knowledge creation process by Nonaka

use of current knowhow and new idea of incorporating efficient improvement and refinement into a business (March 1991; Roth and Kleiner 1998, Lynn et al. 1998). The above knowledge-related studies are not explicitly related to the concept of OL, but they shed lights on how the knowledge-related learning process is contributing to OL.

2.3 Knowledge Creation in the Digital Age Apart from business performance, the influence of OL on knowledge management has also been addressed. It has been proven that OL promotes knowledge management and the quality of knowledge (Gagnon et al. 2015; Thepthepa and Mitsufuji 2016). While the technology development fosters growth (Thomson 1967; Zammuto and O’Connor 1992), firms characterized by intensive technologies are found to have high levels of innovation (Pennings and Harianto 1992), emphasis on team oriented (Saxenian 1990) and a high level of job structure (Hofstede et al. 1990). Organizational learning and knowledge management always come in twin, they are heavily dependent on organizational memory. Organizational memory is at the centre of all knowledge activities. While organizational memory depends on the individual memories of organization members, the rules, procedures, beliefs, and cultures are preserved over time through socialization and control (Levitt and March, 1988). Short term knowledge efforts should concentrate on short term knowledge preservation, which is based mostly on tacit knowledge. This can be facilitated through best

18

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

practice data bases, lessons-learned archives, or expert systems. In long-term efforts, organizational memory should support knowledge creation and organizational learning. Knowledge creation happens at the intersection of organizational members. The burgeoning of information communication technologies offers some new methods of analysing and interpreting the meaningful patterns and structures of information. IT tools for knowledge creation consists of mind-mapping tools, simulations, collaborative writing tools, data and text mining, and visualization tools (Al-Hawamdeh 2003). Some emerging learning technologies, such as learning recommender system, question and answering system, are also developed to support personalized learning preference and process. In the digitalization process of most organizations, these technologies are increasingly adopted and integrated with the existing document management systems, expert systems, and enterprise software (Botha et al. 2008). As an important dimension of organization investment in members’ knowledge development, information service system enables users to utilize information accumulated in the operation process and reflect on the existing experience. Effective integration between knowledge creation process and information technologies is essential for organizations to survive in this digital age. Chua (2004) developed a three-tiered knowledge management system architecture to bridge the gap between knowledge management community and consultant technologist. This architecture provides three types of services supported by knowledge management technologies including infrastructure services, knowledge services, and presentation services. Incorporating knowledge creation tools can transform this architecture into a three-tiered knowledge creation system architecture as illustrated in Fig. 2.2 (Please refer Sect. 8.3).

Knowledge Presentation Recommender System

Data Visualization Knowledge Creation Information

Question

Concept

Retrieval

Answering

Extraction

Data Management Organizational Learning Support System (OLSS)

Fig. 2.2 Knowledge creation system architecture

2 Organizational Learning for Value Creation

19

2.4 Organizational Value and Learning Policy Knowledge creation process embodies the learning policies and value of an organization. Organizational value describes the collective behavior and mindset of organization members. Value of an organization has invisible influence on individual’s behavior, including learning and knowledge sharing. An organization with management emphasizing more on innovations and creativity will encourage people’s creative thinking and knowledge development. So that managers are keen on fostering an atmosphere for employees to develop their knowledge and independent thinking ability. Organization policy embodies the management philosophy of an organization. It also determines the amount and type of resource allocated for employee development. Sufficient learning resource, especially online resource support and facilitate individual learning. Organization policy also defines the employee’s performance evaluation dimensions and standards. An evaluation scheme with effective feedback of individual performance provides external motivation and pressure on the individual learning and development. Knowledge gained by teams has been associated with realizable benefits in the form of improved performance (Meyer 1994). This aligns well with the OL ideals and is similar to the Core Group Theory, which explains how the power, knowledge, and influence of core groups interact with organization opportunities to gain learning and creativity for the groups concerned (Kleiner 2003). Organizational value in the dimension of learning and knowledge sharing evolves as the organization grows and transforms and is shaped by organization learning policy (Geng et al. 2016). Organizational policies regarding to the information technology investment reflect the management support for employee knowledge development. Therefore, the effective setting of organizational learning policies helps to enhance the learning and knowledge sharing.

2.5 Organizational Knowledge Creation Technologies Organizations are referred as “learning systems” (Revans 1982). Learning in the organizational context can take various forms including both formal and informal learning (Drachsler et al. 2008), online learning and offline learning (Singh 2003). Compared with offline learning, online learning provides greater flexibility in time and space for learners. The digitalization of workplace operations also highlights the importance of online learning (Ravenscroft et al. 2012). Learning technologies such as learning information retrieval, question answering system, learning recommender system, and data visualization techniques are emerging in recent years.

20

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

2.5.1 Information Retrieval Information retrieval (IR) is finding material (usually documents) of an unstructured nature (usually text) that satisfies an information need from within large collections. Three prominent scales include web search, personal information retrieval, and enterprise/institutional/domain-specific search (Manning et al. 2008). IR for organizational knowledge creation needs to allow explorative searching using nature language and overcome the challenge of syntax variations and semantic complexities (Li et al. 2007) of documents. The leverage of enterprise knowledge structure or content categories can help to improve the searching performance (Geng 2017).

2.5.2 Question Answering Question answering, as an important research direction in Nature Language processing (NLP), aims at interpreting and answering the human questions in nature language. Compared with information retrieval, question answering is more challenging, as it requires accurate answer to questions rather than retrieving only relevant document based on user query. Question answering within organizations can make use of the ontology to identify concepts related to the query in the knowledge domain. The frequently asked user questions can be stored with the answers and posted on the web page for fresh users. By providing a user-friendly way of getting information from the knowledge base, question answering service can facilitate the individual learning in the organization.

2.5.3 Recommender System The recommender system for knowledge creation is able to proactively sends information to users based on user interests after seeking users’ consent (Fig. 2.3). With the increasing volume of information stored in the knowledge base and more users use the knowledge base as learning resource, the RS can assist learners in discovering relevant learning resource that match their interests. Learning recommender system can assist in employee training with lower cost and improves the skills of employees (Payne et al. 2009). Acquiring qualified and trustworthy information can enhance the users’ perceived quality of decision making between choices (Yan et al. 2017; Lin and Xu 2017). Personalization increases the change of rating elicitation and additional information about the users is beneficial in improving the active learning process (Elahi et al. 2016).

2 Organizational Learning for Value Creation

21

Knowledge resource relevant to enterprise knowledge domains

User context

User

Recommender

profile

Learning

System

recommendation

User feedback

User preference

Fig. 2.3 Knowledge recommender system architecture

2.5.4 Data Visualization Data visualization techniques aim at helping users to better understand the content in the knowledge base. There are many scenarios where data visualization can be applied. For example, visualizing the major concepts or themes of the contents helps users to navigate within or across different themes and perform explorative searching in the knowledge base. Visualizing the queries of users and most frequently accessed contents can help the managers to detect the important issues being studied among the users. Data visualization function can also assist users with modelling and analysing certain group of data which may create new knowledge.

2.6 Chapter Highlights • Organizational learning stimulates knowledge creation for organizational value. • Organization policy shapes organizational value in the learning dimension. • Knowledge creation gains support from information technologies in this digital age. • Knowledge creation system contains data management tier, knowledge creation tier, knowledge representation tier. • Knowledge creation technologies can be classified into different tier of knowledge creation system.

22

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

References Al-Hawamdeh S (2003) Knowledge management: cultivating knowledge professionals. Elsevier Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Babnik K, Breznik K, Dermol V, Trunk Širca N (2014) The mission statement: organisational culture perspective. Ind Manag Data Syst 114(4):612–627 Balthazard PA, Cooke RA, Potter RE (2006) Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional organization: capturing the behavioural norms that form organizational culture and drive performance. J Manag Psychol 21(8):709–732 Bollinger AS, Smith RD (2001) Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset. J Knowl Manag 5(1):8–18 Botha A, Kourie D, Snyman R (2008) Coping with continuous change in the business environment. J Mol Biol 33(1):109–122 Bourne H, Jenkins M (2013) Organizational values: a dynamic perspective. Organ Stud 34(4):495–514 Burgoyne J (1999) Design of times. People Manag 5(11):38 Cameron KS, Quinn RE (1999) An introduction to changing organizational culture. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework, pp 1–17 Campbell P (2011) Creative industries in a European capital of culture. Int J Cult Policy 17(5):510–522 Chua A (2004) Knowledge management system architecture: a bridge between KM consultants and technologists. Int J Inf Manage 24(1):87–98 Cook SD, Yanow D (1993) Culture and organizational learning. J Manag Inq 2(4):373–390 Costanza DP, Blacksmith N, Coats MR, Severt JB, Decostanza AH (2015) The effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. J Bus Psychol 31(3):361–381 Dodgson M (1993) Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organ Stud 14(3):375–394 Drachsler H, Hummel HG, Koper R (2008) Personal recommender systems for learners in lifelong learning networks: the requirements, techniques and model. Int J Learn Technol 3(4):404–423 Elahi M, Ricci F, Rubens N (2016) Active learning in collaborative filtering recommender systems. Comput Sci Rev 20(C):29–50 Finkelstein S, Harvey C, Lawton T (2008) Vision by design: a reflexive approach to enterprise regeneration. J Bus Strategy 29(2):4–13 Gagnon MP, Payne-Gagnon J, Fortin JP, Paré G, Côté J, Courcy F (2015) A learning organization in the service of knowledge management among nurses: a case study. Int J Inf Manage 35(5):636–642 Geng S (2017) Knowledge discovery for organizational learning. City University of Hong Kong. Ph.D. Dissertation Geng S, Chuah KB, Cheung CK (2016) Learning and knowledge sharing in a manufacturing company. Knowl Manag: An Int J 16(4):13–32 Hirota S, Kubo K, Miyajima H, Hong P, Won Park Y (2010) Corporate mission, corporate policies and business outcomes: evidence from Japan. Manag Decis 48(7):1134–1153 Hofstede G (1983) The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. J Int Bus Stud 14(2):75–89 Hofstede G (1994) The business of international business is culture. Int Bus Rev 3(1):1–14 Hofstede G, Neuijen B, Ohayv DD, Sanders G (1990) Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Adm Sci Q 286–316 Kleijnen J, Dolmans D, Muijtjens A, Willems J, Van Hout H (2009) Organisational values in higher education: perceptions and preferences of staff. Qual High Educ 15(3):233–249 Kleiner A (2003) Who really matters: the core group theory of power, privilege, and success. Crown Business Laurent A (1986) The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource management. Hum Resour Manag 25(1):91–102 Levitt B, March JG (1988) Organizational learning. Ann Rev Sociol 14(1):319–338 Leymann H (1989) Learning theories. In: Leymann H, Kornbluh H (eds)

2 Organizational Learning for Value Creation

23

Li Z, Raskin V, Ramani K (2007) Developing ontologies for engineering information retrieval. In: ASME 2007 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (pp 737–745). American Society of Mechanical Engineers Lin CA, Xu X (2017) Effectiveness of online consumer reviews: the influence of valence, reviewer ethnicity, social distance and source trustworthiness. Internet Res 27(2):362–380 Lynn GS, Mazzuca M, Morone JG, Paulson AS (1998) Learning is the critical success factor in developing truly new products. Res Technol Manag 41(3):45 Manning C, Raghavan P, Schütze H (2008) Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://www-nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511809071 March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Soc Sci Electron Publ 2(1):71–87 Meyer MA (1994) The dynamics of learning with team production implications for task assignment. Quart J Econ 109(4):1157–1184 Nonaka I, Takeuchi K (1995) The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1996) The knowledge creating company. New York Payne AM, Stephenson JE, Morris WB, Tempest HG, Mileham A, Griffin DK (2009) The use of an e-learning constructivist solution in workplace learning. Int J Ind Ergon 39(3):548–553 Pennings JM, Harianto F (1992) The diffusion of technological innovation in the commercial banking industry. Strateg Manag J 13(1):29–46 Ravenscroft A, Schmidt A, Cook J, Bradley C (2012) Designing social media for informal learning and knowledge maturing in the digital workplace. J Comput Assist Learn 28(3):235–249 Revans R (1982) The origins and growth of action learning. Ind Commerc Train 14(7):248–249 Rhody JD, Tang TLP (1995) Learning from Japanese transplants and American corporations. Public Pers Manag 24(1):19–32 Roth G, Kleiner A (1998) Developing organizational memory through learning histories. Org Dyn 27(2):43–60 Salem Khalifa A (2012) Mission, purpose, and ambition: redefining the mission statement. J Strategy Manag 5(3):236–251 Saxenian A (1990) Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley. Calif Manag Rev 33(1):89–112 Selmer J, De Leon C (1996) Parent cultural control through organizational acculturation: HCN employees learning new work values in foreign business subsidiaries. J Organ Behav 17(S1):557–572 Selmer J, De Leon C (2002) Management and culture in the Philippines. Business Research Centre, School of Business, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Shrivastava P (1985) Corporate strategy: integrating strategy formulation with organizational culture. J Bus Strategy 5(3):103–111 Singh H (2003) Building effective blended learning programs. Educ Technol 43(6):51–54 Thepthepa N, Mitsufuji T (2016) Knowledge process and learning organization development in science museums. Procedia Comput Sci 99:157–170 Thomson JD (1967) Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory. McGrawHill, c1967 Toftoy CN, Chatterjee J (2004) Mission statements and the small business. Bus strategy Rev 15(3):41–44 Wilson I (1992) Realizing the power of strategic vision. Long Range Plan 25(5):18–28 Yan Y, Zhang X, Zha X, Jiang T, Qin L, Li Z (2017) Decision quality and satisfaction: the effects of online information sources and self-efficacy. Internet Res 27(4):885–904 Zammuto RF, O’Connor EJ (1992) Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies’ benefits: the roles of organization design and culture. Acad Manag Rev 17(4):701–728

24

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the Associate Professor in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland. Dr. Law obtained her Ph.D. in Organization Learning and M.Phil in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong. She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Development (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations. Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed). Dr. Shuang Geng obtained her B.S. degree in engineering (in 2013) and Ph.D. degree (in 2017) from the College of Science and Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, P.R. China. She is currently Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Management Science Department, College of Management, and Greater Bay Area International Institute for Innovation in Shen Zhen University. Her research interests include Project and Team Management, Recommender Systems, Learning Technologies, Heuristic Optimization Algorithms. Her papers appear in Computers & Education, Project Management Journal, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, etc.

Chapter 3

Factors in Organizational Learning Kris M. Y. Law and Chris R. Cao

Abstract Many studies have been conducted to identify the influencing factors of OL process and effectiveness. Among the many OL influencing factors, individual and interpersonal factors may be of the most important for some organizations in certain operational environments. In this chapter, how OL process is affected by individual and organizational factors are discussed.

Grounded on the notion that OL is “process-focusing” and “innate, ongoing process” in organizations (Chap. 1), many studies were conducted to identify the influencing factors of OL process and effectiveness. To depict OL process visualization, a process-focusing model breaking down the OL process into Driver-Enabler-Learning-Outcome (DELO), was introduced to describe the OL process (Law 2007, 2009; Law and Chuah 2015). The DELO model is shown in Fig. 3.1. The detailed DELO process will be discussed further in Chap. 4. In this chapter, influencing factors, which are divided into ‘individual’ and ‘organizational’, are discussed (Fig. 3.2).

3.1 Individual Factors The paradoxical nature that OL is not merely the collection of individual learning, but is more than the cumulative sum of individual learners (Argyris and Schon 1978; Hedberg 1981; Cohen and Levinthal 1990). Figure 3.3 illustrates the synergy effect when individual learners learn collectively. K. M. Y. Law (B) School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] C. R. Cao Crest View Technology InVestment Ltd., Shenzhen, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_3

25

26

K. M. Y. Law and C. R. Cao

Fig. 3.1 The DELO organizational learning process

Organizational culture and individual are correlated (Schein 1984, 1986). Individual’s mindset that interacts with facets of situations within an organization is crucial to the learning. Aspects of individuals, such as values and beliefs, interact with facets of situations to affect the individual’s attitudinal and behavioural responses. A key issue in the literature on OL is the permeability between individual and OL, that is, to what extent the characteristics and processes by which individuals be extended to OL. Human resources professionals have been focusing on ways which promote learning in organizations (Marsick and Gephart 2003). It has been theorized that systematic approaches to learning in organizations are tied to corporate performance and are therefore of value. Additional insight into the potential impacts of the environments of employees is crucial for learning and developmental practice (Egan et al. 2004). Employee attitudes have been found to interact with environmental factors that influence job values (Mobley 1977), and that motivate people to learn.

3.1.1 Motivation The importance of motivation to knowledge transfer and OL has been advocated by OL researchers. Research on motivation primarily focused on the need for achievement, which interacts with other variables to influence performance. Motivation in

3 Factors in Organizational Learning

27

Self

Self

Team

Learning culture and infrastructure

project

Self Individual level

Team level

Organizational level

Individual factors:

Organizational factors:

Motivation

Facilitation

Efficacy

Culture

Goals

Evaluation

Fig. 3.2 Levels of learning and influencing factors Fig. 3.3 The synergy of collective learning in organization

individual

individual

individual

Synergy

28

K. M. Y. Law and C. R. Cao

learning is the desire to use the knowledge and skills mastered in associated with learning activities from the job, where cognitive ability moderates the relationship between need for achievement and performance. Therefore, motivation constitutes a central force when going through process of organizational activities. The aim of every LO is to explore the factors that enable and motivate employees to learn. Motivational theories, such as motives and needs (Alderfer 1972; Maslow 1954, 1970), Expectancy Theory (Vroom 1964), Adam’s Equity Theory (Adams 1963, 1965), Cognitive Theory (Deci 1980) and Reinforcement Theory (Skinner 1958), Goal Setting Theory (Wofford et al. 1992), have been widely studied. Reinforcement Theory and Cognitive Evaluation Theory are two of the key theories within the mainstream of motivation field. Most researchers believe that both intrinsic and extrinsic job factors have effects on job satisfaction, work involvement, and work motivation. Expectancy theory Expectancy theory (Vroom 1964) suggests that motivation is a multiplicative function of three constructs: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Rasch and Tosi carried out performance studies by integrating elements within expectancy theory, goal setting and the need for achievement. Equity Equity (Adams 1963, 1965) was primarily proposed as a way of understanding how employees respond to situations in which they are treated favourably in comparison to a referent “other”. Weick (1969) described it as one of the most useful organizational behaviour theories, and several reviews concluded that the evidence for equity theory was generally strong. However, critics have described equity theory as one of the ‘not so useful’ theories among the organizational behaviour theories (Miner 2005). Reinforcement theory Reinforcement theory emphasizes the relationship between behaviour and its consequences (Skinner 1958). Cognitive evaluation theory Cognitive evaluation theory suggests two motivational subsystems: extrinsic subsystem and intrinsic subsystem (Deci 1980), in which situational variables and impacts from external sources could significantly affect the cognition and hence the motivation of an individual.

3.1.2 Self-efficacy and Personal Goals Self-efficacy and personal goals are important in determining performance. The positive relationship between efficacy and performance and researches focused on several important issues related to the theory of goal setting were carried out in the 1990s.

3 Factors in Organizational Learning

29

This includes the studies of goal difficulty-performance relationship, goal commitment in goal setting, personal goals, self-efficacy and effectiveness of goal setting (Wofford et al. 1992). Self-efficacy generally refers to what a person believes he or she can do in a task. Wofford’s study examined the role of self-efficacy in the goal setting process and selfefficacy has been proven to correlate with the intrinsic motivation and commitment to goal attainment (Wofford et al. 1992). People with high-level self-efficacy are likely to set high goals and to perform well (Locke and Latham 1990). Self-set goals are often more desirable than assigned goals because they automatically engender higher-level commitment. Klein and Mulvey (1995) further suggested that cohesiveness within teams also positively relates to goal commitment. The interplay between individual aspects and organizational learning process are crucial to the development of a LO.

3.2 Organizational Factors In an organizational learning setting, the learning process can be influenced by a number of factors at organizational level, including the culture and infrastructure of the organization, facilitation provided and the performance management.

3.2.1 Facilitation and Facilitators Facilitation is by nature a comprehensive process that is made up of carefully structured or provisional interventions. There have been various definitions for facilitation. Hunter et al. (1993) described the role of facilitation as an artful dance requiring rigorous discipline. It is a set of purposeful interventions that seek to enable groups of people to work together toward a shared vision. Seeing facilitation as the interventions that unlock intractable situations in groups or organizations, Havergal and Edmonstone (1999) suggested that facilitation should be used when a group or organization is confronted with any of the following occasions, such as distrust or bias, unhealthy rivalries within the team, poorly-defined problems and goals as well as some complex or crisis situations. Kiser (1998) viewed facilitation as an adaptable process through which rapport building, clarification of objectives, design and introduction of interventions, feedback collection and results evaluation are conducted. From the perspective of psychotherapy, Baxter (2000) defined facilitation as the process of helping people to understand how they think, interact and feel about specific topics that are related to specific roles in their lives. Hogan (2002) defined facilitation as an art, science, and profession that involves incorporating a range of communication, process skills and participatory values into one’s life and engaging all parties to have a degree of ownership and responsibility for their shared activity. These definitions actually reveal a homogeneous meaning that facilitation is about enabling the communication and

30

K. M. Y. Law and C. R. Cao

cooperation between different members or parties in a group or organization to let them achieve better decision-making and act accordingly. The facilitation and evaluation in the framework effect both individual and team learning towards goals. Facilitation is expected to guide the learning individuals or teams within an organization through the process of knowledge generation, application, retention and sharing. A facilitator is a person who conducts a facilitation process in group situations. Havergal and Edmonstone (1999) described a facilitator as a person who helps a group or team to work together in a collaborative way, by focusing on the mechanics and process of how the team’s participants work together. Heron (1999) stressed that a facilitator should give the notion of empowering and supporting participants to interact and collaborate as well as to develop and learn in an experiential learning group. Hogan (2002) defined a facilitator as a self-reflective, process-person who has a variety of human, process, technical skills and knowledge, together with a variety of experiences to assist groups to journey together to reach their goals. The facilitator is usually formally appointed to this role by the sponsor of the group, and the group members will voluntarily accept the facilitator.

3.2.2 Culture Organizational culture has been important in the organizational studies and organizational learning. Culture is a complex matter, which is even more complex, pluralistic, and diverse, contradictory, or inherently ‘paradoxical’ in organizational settings. In the scope of organizational studies, culture in organizations is one such factor that has received much attention. Traditional organizational models did not always help to understand disparities between goals and outcomes, as well as between strategy and implementation. The study on culture assists the organization in dealing with management and organizational problems related to strategy, employees, and communication (Browaeys and Baets 2003). The organizational culture is proven affecting performance (Wooldridge and Minsky 2002), which includes productivity and knowledge creation (Denison 1984, 1996; Deshpandé et al. 1993). With the notion that knowledge creation is one of the expected outcomes of OL, organizational culture affects the OL process. Organizational culture is commonly defined as the pattern of shared assumptions, values and beliefs, or the dynamic and active entity with shared understanding and sense (Hofstede et al. 1990, 1984; Schein 1984; Morgan 1986; Deshpandé and Webster 1989). The elements of organizational culture include values, norms, symbols, rituals, and other cultural activities revolve around them. Actors contributing to the culture within an organization, include internal factors and features present in external environment, such as national culture and industry characteristics. More details about cultural factors enabling OL process are discussed in Sect. 4.3.1.

3 Factors in Organizational Learning

31

3.2.3 Measuring Organizational Learning Like measurement of team learning performance, measurement of the OL performance is carried out with respect to the pre-set organizational goals and outcomes. Any attempt to assess the term “learning organization” (LO) in practice is often contentious. In the first place, the mainstream definitions of the term LO have posed a big challenge to its measurability. It has been argued that implementation of OL has been hindered by the lack of methods to measure learning activity (Smith and Tosey 1999a, b). Assessing LO is even harder than measuring learning activity and performance within an organization. It is rather a social process to link an organization’s learning status (mindset, culture, practice, effectiveness etc) with LO ideals (Smith and Tosey 1999a, b). Some researchers proposed that OL could be measured by including employee and information system capabilities, motivation, empowerment, and alignment into an integrated balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1996). There are yet no evidence of any fool proof ways to measure how effective or ineffective learning initiatives may be. Contemporary performance measurement apparatus does not meet all the requirements of knowledge-intensive organizational environment (Vakkuri and Meklin 2003). Traditional measures such as profits may be undesirable because LOs should not focus on short-term solutions (Senge 1990). The impact of culture on the performance measurement within organizations is also emphasized (Vakkuri and Meklin 2003). The process of measuring learning is highly subjective because it involves tapping into people’s perceptions and personal judgments. Argyris (1999) addressed that the built-in capability of double-loop learning was crucial for any organizations to achieve generative change and growth. To come by this capability and enable genuine learning, it requires the members of an organization to resolve organizational defensive routines by constantly questioning their own deeply held “theory-in-use” and adopting what is called “Model II theory-inuse” to guide the course of action. This kind of learning could be very hard to measure in an objective and quantitative manner. The very nature of OL has made its assessment even more complicated. The learning of organization can essentially be traced to three iterative kinds of change, namely cognitive change, behavioural change, and eventually the improvement of performance. The delays between any of the two kinds of change can vary considerably from one organizational setting to another. Besides, the five disciplines advocated by Senge involve radical changes of the mental model, organizational culture, and the thinking pattern of a group of people, which would need a long period of time to realize in a real setting and even longer to transfer the effects of learning to business outcomes. It is thus difficult to assess the effectiveness of the LO implementation using traditional performance measurements. In this book, the notion of LO is considered more like a management philosophy used for unifying the aspirations, minds and efforts of organizational members and facilitating the desired transformation of an organization so as to build its long-term capacity to survive and flourish, rather than just a measurable state to be achieved, yet

32

K. M. Y. Law and C. R. Cao

we do hold the point that the learning of an organization in certain structured settings (such as team based learning or collective learning) can be inferred and assessed through a heuristic approach in the way proposed by Smith and Tosey (1999a, b).

3.3 Chapter Highlights • To depict OL process visualization, a process-focusing model breaking down the OL process into Driver-Enabler-Learning-Outcome (DELO), was introduced to describe the OL process. • Organizational culture and individual are correlated. Individual’s mindset that interacts with facets of situations within an organization is crucial to the learning. • A key issue in the literature on OL is the permeability between individual and OL, that is, to what extent the characteristics and processes by which individuals be extended to OL. • The organizational culture is proven affecting performance, which includes productivity and knowledge creation. With the notion that knowledge creation is one of the expected outcomes of OL, organizational culture affects the OL process.

References Adams JS (1963) Towards an understanding of inequity. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 67(5):422–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968 Adams JS (1965) Inequality in social exchange. In: Advances in experimental psychology. Academic Press, New York, NY, pp 267–299 Alderfer C (1972) Existence, relatedness & growth. Free Press, New York Argyris C (1999) On organizational learning, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell Argyris C, Schon D (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA Baxter G (2000) The difference between facilitation and therapy, cited in Hogan’s (2002) book: Understanding facilitation: theory & principles. Kogan Page Limited, London Browaeys M, Baets B (2003) Cultural complexity: a new epistemological perspective. Learn Organ 10(6):332–339 Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152 Deci EL (1980) The psychology of self-determination. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA Denison DR (1984) Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Org Dyn 13(2):4–22 Denison DR (1996) What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Acad Manage Rev 21(3):619–654 Deshpandé R, Webster FE Jr (1989) Organizational culture and marketing: defining the research agenda. J Mark 53(1):3–15 Deshpandé R, Farley JU, Webster FE Jr (1993) Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis. J Mark 57(1):23–37

3 Factors in Organizational Learning

33

Egan TM, Yang B, Bartlett KR (2004) The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Hum Resour Dev Q 15(3), Fall:279 Havergal M, Edmonstone J (1999) The facilitator’s toolkit. Gower Hedberg B (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn. In: Nystrom P, Starbuck W (eds) Handbook of organizational design: adapting organisations to their environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–27 Heron J (1999) Complete facilitator’s handbook. Kogan Page Limited, London Hofstede G (1984) Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pac J Manage 1:81–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733682 Hofstede G, Neuijen B, Ohayv DD, Sanders G (1990) Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Adm Sci Q 286–316 Hogan C (2002) Understanding facilitation: theory & principles. Kogan Page Limited, London Hunter D, Bailey A, Taylor B (1993) The art of facilitation. Tandem Press, Auckland, New Zealand Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harv Bus Rev 79 Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harv Bus Rev 74:75–85 Kiser AG (1998) Masterful facilitation: becoming a catalyst for meaningful change. American Management Association Klein HJ, Mulvey PW (1995) The setting of goals in groups: an examination of processes and performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 61:44–53 Law KMY (2007) The development and implementation of project action learning framework (PAL)-from theory to practice. PhD thesis, City University of Hong Kong Law KMY (2009) From driving to learning: the organizational learning process. IEEE Eng Manage Rev 37(1):66–79 Law KMY, Chuah KB (2015) PAL driven organizational learning: theory and practices: a light on learning journey of organizations. Springer International Publishing, pp 7–29 Locke EA, Latham GP (1990) A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Marsick VJ, Gephart M (2003) Action research: building the capacity for learning and change. Hum Resour Plan 26:14–18 (Maslow) Maslow AH (1954, 1970) Motivation and personality, 2nd edn. Harper & Row, New York Miner JB (2005) Organizational behavior: essential theories of motivation and leadership. M.E. Sharpe Mobley WH (1977) Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. J Appl Psychol 62:237–240 Morgan G (1986) Images of organization. Sage, Beverly Hills Schein EH (1984) Coming to a new awareness of organisational culture 25 Schein EH (1986) What you need to know about organizational culture. Train Dev J 40(1):30–33 Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York, NY Skinner BF (1958) Verbal behavior. Copley Publishing Group, Acton, MA. ISBN 1-58390-021-7 Smith PAC, Tosey P (1999a) Assessing the learning organization: part 1—theoretical foundations. Learn Organ 6(2):70–75 Smith PAC, Tosey P (1999b) Assessing the learning organization: part 2—exploring practical assessment approaches. Learn Organ 6(3):107–115 Vakkuri J, Meklin P (2003) The impact of culture on the use of performance measurement information in the university setting. Manage Decis 41:751–759 Vroom VH (1964) Work and motivation. Wiley, New York, NY

34

K. M. Y. Law and C. R. Cao

Weick KE (1969) The social psychology of organizing. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Wofford JC, Goodwin VL, Premack S (1992) Meta-analysis of the antecedents of personal goal level. J Manage 18(3):595 Wooldridge BR, Minsky BD (2002) The role of climate and socialization in development interfunctional coordination. Learn Organ 9(1):29–38

Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the Associate Professor in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland. Dr. Law obtained her Ph.D. in Organization Learning and M.Phil. in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong. She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Development (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations. Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed).

Dr. Chris R. Cao received his B.Sc. in Computer Science and Technology in 2005 from Nanjing University. He obtained his M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Engineering Management from City University of Hong Kong. His research interests include organizational learning, project management, corporate governance, staff training and development, etc. He currently serves as the director of a technology investment group, giving support to business development and internal control of the corporation.

Chapter 4

Organizational Learning Process as DELO Kris M. Y. Law and Kong Bieng Chuah

Abstract To have a better understanding of OL, it is critical to explore how an organization maybe transitioned into an LO, how its OL process is initiated, driven, enabled, facilitated, and measured. This chapter introduces OL as a continuous process called DELO (Driving, Enabling, Learning, Outcome). Each of the core components along the DELO process is discussed in details in this chapter.

Knowledge is the centre link of an LO, where OL has the features of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. The study of OL has focused on a number of areas, namely, learning at different levels, learning process, learning systems, culture, knowledge, facilitation and performance management etc. The DELO model, consisting of four core components-drivers (D), enablers (E), learning (L) and outcome (O), was introduced to describe the OL process, by visualization Law (2009).

4.1 The DELO Model A distinction is noted in the OL literature on the tendency of researchers to focus either on the ‘process’ or the ‘content’ of learning. The theories thus developed either describe what learning is or how learning takes place. For instance, Senge (1990) and Garvin (1993) specify a set of prescriptive conditions for learning organizations, while other ‘process-focusing’ theories describe the processes and concepts of OL. These process-focusing theories include the theories of Kimberly and Miles (1980), K. M. Y. Law (B) School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] K. B. Chuah Department of System Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_4

35

36

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah

and Cook and Yanow (1993) on learning from action and acquisition. There is rarely an integrated treatment of OL as an ongoing process constituted by different learning patterns and styles. DiBella et al. (1996) then proposed that learning is an ‘innate, ongoing process’ in organizations. All organizations have learning capabilities that ‘embody’ distinctive styles or patterns of learning. This learning ‘capability’ perspective emphasizes the dynamic nature of OL. We regard this notion of ‘innate and ongoing process’ as the foundation of this book. OL is not just the physical process of learning, acquiring and sharing knowledge, nor just a specific part of organizational change, but also how attitudes and mindsets are changed to complement organizational development. Different perspectives are used to study OL by researchers from different disciplines. There is no single framework for the study of OL. To better understand OL, it is thus crucial to explore how an organization maybe transitioned into an LO, how its OL process is initiated, driven, enabled, facilitated, and measured. The DELO model, drivers (D), enablers (E), learning (L) and outcome (O) is shown as in Fig. 4.1.

Drivers Organizational culture

Enablers Internal forces: interpersonal Individuals: Mindset, values

Learning

Outcome

Learning approach Facilitation

Performance

Fig. 4.1 The process of organizational learning and corresponding “influencers” (Law and Chuah 2015)

4 Organizational Learning Process as DELO

37

• Drivers of organizational learning refer to the leaders, who have the vision and mission of implementing OL. Drivers are the driving forces of starting up OL within a company. The attributes contributing to this block include vision, mission, and leadership. • The enablers are the ‘influencers’ of the subsequent OL process. There is no clear and widely accepted depiction of the linkage between OL and its enabling factors. The driving factors and enabling factors of OL consider various factors within an organizational context. These include factors of organizational culture (processoriented or result-oriented), individual (job values and learning motivation), and interpersonal (cooperation and competition forces). • Driven by driving factors and enabled by enablers, learning is assumed to take place within the organization. The learning process itself, which is vital to the learning effectiveness and performance, is influenced by the various enabling factors. A more elaborated model of the organizational learning process is shown as Fig. 4.2.

Organization

Vision

Supportive environment Governance & policy Infrastructure Resources Facilitation

Knowledge sharing and creation

Cultural context (OC) Mission Interpersonal Cooperation and Competition forces (OIF)

Leader

Project team-based action learning facilitation

Performance

Individual Job values

Team Learning

Learning Motivation

Individual learning

DRIVER

ENABLERS

LEARNING

Fig. 4.2 Theoretical model for the study of organizational learning

OUTCOME

Mindset change

38

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah

4.2 Driver Facing the challenges due to globalization and rapid technological advancements, companies in the market, regardless of the types of industries, have been consistently to make sure they are prepared for the changes to remain competitive. Competence development is always a strategic concern of companies. OL, as a driving vehicle, has been propounded to help companies to prepare to grow and develop. To initiate OL, the need and desire of the organizations to advance and the will of management are the critical drivers. This will of management can be in the form of a facilitative leadership with strategic thinking and vision, which is crucial in the process of transformation into a learning organization. The relationship of vision and OL strategy, have been discussed in Sect. 2.1. Besides, vision and will, the role of leadership in OL is equally important. There are various roles of a leader in learning organizations, (Nonaka 1994; Senge 1990). Among these roles, the leader has a designer role that involves creating a foundation of purpose and core values within the organization. Strong leaders are required to build shared visions and the facilitating processes for the implementation of OL (Limerick et al. 1994). To summarize, the key commitments of a strong leader in the ‘Driving’ process include: • to building a shared vision within the organization, • empowering people within to get prepared for the OL; • inspiring people to act in the OL process.

4.3 Enabler The enablers are the ‘influencers’ of the OL process. There is no clear and widely accepted depiction of the linkage between OL and its enabling factors. Such a comprehensive concept covering so many aspects is difficult to achieve. In this book, factors influencing the OL process are the focus. The driving factors and enabling factors of OL consider various factors within an organizational context. These include factors of organizational culture (process-oriented or result-oriented), individual (job values and learning motivation), and interpersonal (cooperation and competition).

4.3.1 Organizational Culture The study of how culture affects modern organizations has been a subject matter since long time back (e.g. Trice and Beyer 1984; Ouchi 1979; Chatman and Barsade 1995). The organizational culture is proven affecting organizational performance (Wooldridge and Minsky 2002; Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983), and knowledge creation

4 Organizational Learning Process as DELO

39

(Deshpande et al. 1993). Literature specifically linking organizational culture and organizational learning includes Fiol and Lyles’ (1985) work on contextual factors and Cook and Yanow’s (1993) cultural approach to learning that incorporates the concept of tacit knowledge. Factors contributing to organizational culture can be simply categorized as internal and external. Internal factors include those existing within the organization such as the embedded rituals, practices and mental models. External factors are those features from external environment, such as national cultural and industry characteristics. The culture that enables OL process, is therefore involved in the DELO model.

4.3.2 Process-Oriented Versus Results-Oriented Cultures For organizational culture, Hofstede defined six cultural dimensions, namely process- and result oriented, open- and closed- system, job- and employee-oriented, parochial- and professional, loosely- and tightly-controlled, and normative and pragmatic (Hofstede 1991). Specific cultural dimensions may pertain to the context of learning in organizations. Among the six cultural dimensions, process- and results-oriented dimension are adopted to explain the difference between organizations considering OL as a series of processes and those not: • Process-oriented stating that people perceive themselves as avoiding risks and spending limited effort in their jobs. • Results-oriented stating that people perceive themselves as comfortable in unfamiliar situations and maximal efforts. These factors show that people in the process-oriented cultures perceived themselves as avoiding risks and spending only limited efforts in their jobs, they saw each day as pretty much the same. In the result-oriented culture, people perceived themselves as comfortable in unfamiliar situations and as putting in maximal effort, and felt each day brought new challenges. Furthermore, the process-oriented epistemology is widely used as the knowledge management perspective (Christensen and Bang 2003; Maier and Remus 2002). The process-oriented epistemology considers knowledge creation and sharing as a continuous process between people. It is also a technology as well as tacit and explicit knowledge. Companies adopting process-oriented epistemology focusing on human relations, and by the fact that learning is taking place and knowledge is collected through process reports and quality control systems. By sharing knowledge, the company tries to internalize knowledge. As a result, the value of the knowledge is increased, and this is one of the organizational learning ideals.

40

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah

4.3.3 Internal Forces Configuration of effective organizations can be captured by the interplay of the basic forces in an organization. These basic forces are the system of seven forces introduced by Mintzberg (1991) as the building blocks of an effective organization. Jashapara (2003) further adapted the system of forces for the study on the learning focus of a competitive learning organization. The learning focus proposed by Jashapara is based on Mintzberg’s system of seven forces, emphasizing on the out five ‘pillars’ of the system (Fig. 4.3): • • • • •

direction, efficiency, proficiency, innovation, concentration,

and the two internal catalytic forces: • cooperation and • competition. Among the five ‘pillar’ forces, the force for direction and force for innovation are appropriate to describe action team learning within an LO. • The force for direction is concerned with strategic vision and may relate to the start-up or turnaround situations. This gives a team a common goal. • The force for innovation is concerned with discovering new things and may relate to adhocracies comprised of skilled experts or multi-disciplinary projects (Mintzberg 1991; Jashapara 2003). Fig. 4.3 The seven forces of learning model (Jashapara 2003)

direction

concentration

Cooperation

efficiency

Competition

innovation

proficiency

4 Organizational Learning Process as DELO

41

The concept of forces for direction and innovation conforms to the emphases on goal-driven learning and the learning emphasizing on exploration. Internal forces of competition and cooperation also influence organizational learning (Jashapara 2003). According to Mintzberg (1991), the two catalytic forces of cooperation and competition are described as the pulling together of ideology and pulling apart of politics respectively. Dominant forces of cooperation may result in an ideological organization, while the force of competition relates to political organizations where conflicting factors exist. Internal forces from the literature are therefore crucial to the ‘organizationalgoal-driven’ organizational learning process. In this case, how these internal forces interact with the OL process is crucial to the development of infrastructure for an LO.

4.4 Learning 4.4.1 Team Learning in Learning Organizations OL is multi-levelled learning (Sect. 1.5). Not surprisingly, team learning has been proved to be gaining importance as an OL strategy. LO should pay great attention to the ‘synergy’ of team performance, and therefore, team level learning. Team performance is emphasized as teams are the ‘building blocks’ in an LO. These organizations usually adopt project team or hybrid-project-team structure. The project-based structure can be adopted companywide or specifically to certain units or groups. In this case, team concept and team performance are highly valued and relied upon. Senge (1990) explained that organization or team performance improvement is a result of collective-intelligence of an organization or a team, which exceeds the sum of intelligence of individuals. Systematizing learning in a project team creates mutual interdependence and interconnection. Knowledge gained by teams is associated with realizable benefits in the form of improved performance. This effect aligns well with the OL ideals and the Core Group Theory, which explains how the power, knowledge, and influence of core groups interacts with organization opportunities to gain learning and creativity for the groups concerned.

4.4.2 Learning as an Integral Part at Work Learning organizations aim to transform old behaviours, patterns of thinking and improve skill and know-how to adapt to the challenging dynamic environment.

42

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah

Learning, thus, involves the linking up of knowledge and know-how systems, structures, and processes. As discussed earlier about learning at different levels within an organization (Sect. 1.5), much of the knowledge of an organization resides in its people, much of the learning is socially constructed and specific in context. Employees are more willing to learn systematically and intensively, if learning becomes a required part of their everyday work. The scope of learning at workplace encompasses formal, informal and incidental learning in the workplace for individuals, groups and teams, as well as work-based learning, and off-the-job learning for the workplace. This focus on learning in, from and for the workplace also brings with it questions about the nature of interventions that might assist the learning process. These interventions may be the supporting infrastructure, policies and facilitations. When learning is taken places at workplace, knowledge is interpreted, aggregated, and shared at the collective level through the interactions of members in the organization. This knowledge is embedded in the routines and practices through the repeated rounds of experiences by individual members. This aligns with the concept of action learning, discussed in the following section (Sect. 4.4.3).

4.4.3 Action Learning and OL Action learning has been proposed as one of the effective approaches to organizational development and a problem-solving approach for organizations facing complex problems (Clarke et al. 2006; Loo 2006). Action learning was first elaborated by Revans (1982) as a type of learning that comes from concrete problem-solving experience and critical reflection within a social environment, by encompassing a wide variety of management learning methods and activities of action and reflection with proper facilitation. Learning does not take place solely within groups in an organization. Emphasizing the importance of the empowerment of individuals to act, action learning therefore fosters OL by allowing effective learning to take place at both individual and organizational levels (Revans 1982; Garvin 1994). In this sense, the goal-driven action learning through project teams is considered as an effective learning approach in an organization gearing itself to becoming an LO. This further forms the foundation of the project-based action learning (PAL) framework, which contributes to the central subject of this book.

4.5 Outcome Within an organization, effective teams normally are those that have clear, worthwhile, and challenging missions to which all members are committed. Teams should

4 Organizational Learning Process as DELO

43

always be purpose-driven and autonomous teams have higher level of motivation and commitment. Thus, it is with a well-defined purpose that a team can demonstrate commitment and synergy. Many authors have suggested a variety of anecdotal recipes for creating successful teams; however, organizational barriers exist, and inappropriate performance management is one of these barriers. The reason is two-fold: • Firstly, most rewards and compensation systems focus on individuals, not on team performance. This may lead to the destructive or dysfunctional competitions among individuals, and less synergistic teamwork. • Secondly, most of the performance appraisal systems do not even consider team issues, while the rewards and compensation systems foster internal competition, thereby limiting the team’s effectiveness and performance.

4.5.1 Performance Measurement of Learning Teams Being as the core part within an OL process, team concept and team performance are highly valued in LOs. Performance measurement of learning teams is, therefore, critically important to an OL process that adopts and expects team learning, for its ability to truly reflect the effectiveness of the team learning. The introduction of OL leads to the question in many OL advocators’ minds– how can the various performance outcomes associated with learning be measured? In the absence of practical and well-founded team performance measurement approaches for team learning within organization, many companies have adopted the existing performance measurement tools, which are mainly developed for business or individual performance instead of for team learning and team performance. These measurement tools often fail to measure what the teams have learned and how they are performing. Furthermore, there are no means of measuring team learning readily available, especially for project-based team learning. There is an apparent failure of linkage between team strategies and performance criteria (Bourne et al. 2002) and a seeming incompatibility between traditional structures and newly developed processes/approaches. Integrated performance measurement systems have been developed for measuring organizational performance (Verweire and Van den Berghe 2003). Most of the existing performance measurement systems are used to measure business performance, but have not been specifically designed for team performance measurements. Some performance measurement systems are used as means to help deploy business objectives to an operational process level (Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1996a, b). In this way, performance measurement facilitates the alignment of goals of all individuals, teams, departments, and processes with the strategic business aims of the organization. However, these performance measurement systems are rather organizationally focused; it has been claimed that those measurement systems are generally unsuitable for team performance measurement.

44

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah

As the focus is OL, the performance outcomes of teams associated with OL goals need to be dealt with explicitly. Measurement of performance should be considered from different perspectives, including individuals and processes (Yeo 2002). Team measurement must be done at both team and individual levels. The importance of performance measurement for learning teams is thus many folds. Not only should it demonstrate what a learning team does, but it should also illustrate how well it undertakes it and how much progress it has made throughout the process of achieving its goals. Equally importantly, it helps OL leaders to manage the organizational change, development, as well as learning process more effectively. Ideally, a performance measurement system deals with the clarification of goals, the alignment of both people and processes, and the monitoring of the progress with respect to business objectives. More specific and directly connected organizational metrics need to be identified (Burrow and Berardinelli 2003). Hence, a performance measurement system for project learning teams should be able to identify the performance gaps between actual team performance and the expected team goals, to find out the ways to improve both the learning and subsequent performance. Smith and Tosey (1999a, b) assessment of LOs is based on a three ‘fields’ system (Focus, Will, Capacity) and model organizations as ‘energies’ of consciousness. Yeo (2002) suggested alternative views of performance measures of LOs by examining the cognitive and behaviour of individuals. Most of these assessment approaches are either organization-based or individualbased. The linkage between team effectiveness and team performance were not yet well addressed in the previous works. This was the gap in OL team performance measurement, and therefore here an integrative evaluation approach is proposed.

4.5.2 An Integrative PAL Evaluation Approach The learning processes are multi-dimensional and influenced by various factors such as individual beliefs, collective culture, organizational factors, and interpersonal factors, which are difficult to measure quantitatively. Better qualitative performance measurement is called for in the measurement of learning within an organization (Sun and Scott 2003). It is crucial to develop an LO measurement approach and system that is appropriate and acceptable to employees at different levels of the organization. An integrative performance evaluation or assessment based on an organizational behavioural platform, considering performance modelling driven by general business outcomes and LO ideals, e.g. Focus-Will-Capacity model, is thus expected. This integrative performance evaluation contributes to the foundation of performance management of OL that requires practicality and consistency.

4 Organizational Learning Process as DELO

4.5.2.1

45

F/W/C PAL Evaluation

The F/W/C PAL evaluation instrument is used by the facilitators during the PAL process. It provides the facilitators and PAL members with a means of holistic reflection of the progress and dynamics of team learning as well as the health of learning climate within each project teams. Further discussion on the execution of F/W/C model for PAL performance evaluation is in Chap. 10. The evaluation model focuses on factors in three fields (Table 4.1).

4.6 Chapter Highlights • To better understand OL, it is thus crucial to explore how an organization maybe transitioned into an LO, how its OL process is initiated, driven, enabled, facilitated, and measured. • DELO describes OL as a continuous goal-driven process, and also allows the study of the organizational factors influencing OL process and outcome and the development and implementation of an OL framework (PAL). • DELO model decomposes OL into Driver, Enablers, Learning and Outcome. • To initiate OL, the need and desire of the organizations to advance and the will of management are the critical drivers. • The driving factors and enabling factors of OL consider various factors within an organizational context. These include factors of organizational culture (processoriented or result-oriented), individual (job values and learning motivation), and interpersonal (cooperation and competition). Table 4.1 Fields in the F/W/C driven PAL performance model Focus

Definition

Factors

A clear definition and understanding of the proposed goal. The PAL process uses both goals and experience to drive and internalize the learning of specially formed project teams (Law and Chuah 2004)

1. Performance Goal: It aims to examine whether all the PAL members have got clear and common understanding about the issues or gaps that their PAL project is set up to deal with, i.e. the performance objectives in this PAL project 2. Learning Goal: It aims to examine if they have clearly set the individual and collective learning objectives in this PAL project 3. Methodology and Planning: It aims to examine if specific and realistic methodology and action plan are being adopted to achieve their PAL project and learning goals (continued)

46

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah

Table 4.1 (continued) Definition

Factors

Will

The strength of intent to achieve the project and learning performance defined in Focus. “Will” is associated with attitudes, emotions, beliefs and mindsets and group dynamics. Such group dynamics is the summation of mental, emotional and physical energy in the group at any given time, and the way it undergoes change

1. Attitude and commitment: the attitude and commitment of learning members toward the PAL project activities and the set goals. This factor aims to examine PAL members’ attitude and motivation to achieve their performance and learning goals 2. Group dynamics: the “Will” field at the PAL team level, including the willingness to cooperate, share, reflect, and introspect with team members. This factor aims to examine the state of learning dynamics and climate of the PAL teams

Capacity

The capability and competence to transform into reality the performance defined in “Focus”. These include the capabilities of teamwork, system thinking and in-depth dialogue

1. Teamwork: the capabilities of members to interact and cooperate with each other to complete their PAL projects. This factor aims to examine if the PAL teams and members possess effective teamwork capability 2. System Thinking: the capabilities of members to analyse and resolve problems in a systematic manner. System thinking requires practitioners to develop high leverage solutions through identifying the underlying whole structure and causality of an encountered event/problem. It aims to examine if the PAL teams and members possess system thinking capability 3. Dialogic Inquiry: the capabilities of members to explore the underlying assumptions and reasoning behind any conflicts/problems encountered in a team. This factor aims to examine if the PAL members can use dialogic inquiries to resolve their conflicts/problems in constructive ways and produce lasting learning 4. Availability of Resources: the time, facilities, training, information and other resources needed to fulfil the performance defined in “Focus”. It aims to examine whether the implementation of the PAL process has been supported by enough resources

4 Organizational Learning Process as DELO

47

• The goal-driven action learning through project teams is considered as an effective learning approach in an organization gearing itself to becoming an LO. • An integrative performance evaluation or assessment based on an organizational behavioural platform, considering performance modelling driven by general business outcomes and LO ideals, e.g. Focus-Will-Capacity model, is expected. • The F/W/C PAL evaluation instrument is used by the facilitators during the PAL process. It provides the facilitators and PAL members with a means of holistic reflection of the progress and dynamics of team learning as well as the health of learning climate within each project teams.

References Bourne M, Neely A, Platts K, Mills J (2002) The success and failure of performance measurement initiatives: perceptions of participating managers. Int J Oper Prod Manage 22(11):1288–1310 Chatman JA, Barsade SG (1995) Personality, organizational culture and cooperation, evidence from a business simulation. Adm Sci Q 40(3):423–443 Christensen KS, Bang HK (2003) Knowledge management in a project-oriented organization: three perspectives. J Knowl Manage 7(3):116–128 Clarke J, Thorpe R, Anderson L, Gold J (2006) It’s all action, it’s all learning: action learning in SMEs. J Eur Ind Training 30(6):441–455 Cook DN, Yanow D (1993) Culture and organizational learning. J Manage Inquiry 2(4):373–390 Deshpande R, Farley JU, Webster FE (1993) Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis. J Mark 57:23–27 DiBella AJ, Nevis EC, Gould JM (1996) Understanding organizational learning capability. J Manage Stud 33(3):361 Foil M, Lyles M (1985) Organizational learning. Acad Manage Rev 10(4):803–813 Garvin DA (1993) Building a learning organization. Harvard Bus Rev 1993:78–91 Garvin DA (1994) Building a learning organization. Business Credit. New York 96(1):19 Hofstede G (1991) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, London Jashapara A (2003) Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical test of the learning organization. Learn Organ 10(1):31–50 Kaplan R, Norton D (1992) The balanced scorecard, measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus Rev 70(1):71–79 Kaplan R, Norton D (1996a) The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA Kaplan R, Norton D (1996b) Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Bus Rev 74(1):75–87 Kimberly JR, Miles RH (1980) The organizational life cycle. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Law KMY (2009) From driving to learning: the organizational learning process. IEEE Eng Manage Rev 37(1):66–79 Law KMY, Chuah KB (2004) Project-based action learning as learning approach in learning organization—the theory and framework. Team Perform Manage Int J 10(7/8):178–186 Law KMY, Chuah KB (2015) PAL driven organizational learning: theory and practices, a light on learning journey of organizations. Springer, Cham Limerick D, Passfield R, Cunnington B (1994) Transformational change: towards an action learning organization. The Learn Organ 1(2):29–40 Loo ID (2006) Action and organizational learning in an elevator company. Learn Organ 13(2/3):204

48

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah

Maier R, Remus U (2002) Defining process-oriented knowledge management strategies. Knowl Process Manage 9(2):103 Mintzberg H (1991) The effective organization: forces and forms. Sloan Manage Rev (Winter):54–67 Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5(1):14–37 Ouchi WG (1979) A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Manage Sci 25(9):833 Quinn RE, Rohrbaugh J (1983) A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Manage Sci 29(3):363 Revans R (1982) The origins and growth of action learning. Chartwell Bratt, Bromley Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday, New York Smith PAC, Tosey P (1999a) Assessing the learning organization: part 1—theoretical foundations. Learn Organ 6(2):70–75 Smith PAC, Tosey P (1999b) Assessing the learning organization: part 2—exploring practical assessment approaches. Learn Organ 6(3):107–115 Sun PY, Scott JL (2003) Towards better qualitative performance measurement in organizations. Learn Organ 10(5):258–271 Trice HM, Beyer JM (1984) Studying organizational culture through rites and ceremonials. Acad Manage Rev 9:653 Verweire K, Van den Berghe L (2003) Integrated performance management: adding a new dimension. Manage Decis 41(8):782–790 Wooldridge BR, Minsky BD (2002) The role of climate and socialization in development interfunctional coordination. Learn Organ 9(1):29–38 Yeo R (2002) Learning within organizations: linking the theoretical and empirical perspectives. J Workplace Learn 14(3):109–122

Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the Associate Professor in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland. Dr. Law obtained her Ph.D. in Organization Learning and M.Phil. in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong. She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Development (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations. Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed).

4 Organizational Learning Process as DELO

49

Dr. Kong Bieng Chuah is Associate Professor of Systems Engineering and Engineering Department, City University of Hong Kong. He is a core faculty member of the Engineering Doctorate, M.Sc. Engineering Management and B.Eng. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management programmes. His current teaching and research focus on project management and project based organizational learning. He is a consultant in project management and organizational learning and conducts project management courses and workshops for industries. In his earlier years, Dr. Chuah was a mechanical engineer with expertise in engineering metrology and surface roughness characterisation. He advised on engineering measurement problems and calibration set-ups.

Part II

Building a Learning Organization

Chapter 5

Project Based Action Learning as the Vehicle Kris M. Y. Law and Kong Bieng Chuah

Abstract Based on the grounds and underpinnings for the DELO model presented in Chap. 4. This chapter brings about the project-based action learning (PAL) framework, that serves as the OL vehicle for any organizations that are keen on implementing OL as the development strategy. In this chapter, the rationale and core notions, such as action learning, project-based learning and team learning process are discussed.

5.1 PAL Driven OL Framework and Concepts Project based action learning driven OL, the core of this book, grounds on both action learning and project-based learning. Action learning has been considered as an effective approach to organizational development and a problem-solving approach for organizations facing complex problems (Clarke et al. 2006; Loo 2006). It was first elaborated by Revans (1971, 1982) as a type of learning that comes from concrete problem-solving experience and critical reflection within a social environment, by encompassing a wide variety of management learning methods and activities of action and reflection with proper facilitation.

5.1.1 What Is PAL? The PAL adopts the concepts of team learning (Poell and Van der Krogt 2003) and action learning for the project-based learning teams. The reason is four-folded: K. M. Y. Law (B) School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] K. B. Chuah Department of System Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_5

53

54

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah

• Firstly, the project is applicable to the tasks that cannot be easily implemented within standard organizational set up. The project-based learning stimulates participants to both learning and achieving. • Secondly, it allows the interdependence and interconnectedness to make the learning process realistic to participants. • Thirdly, individuals in teams are empowered to develop their own competencies in the project team environment. • Fourthly, learning and performance of individuals and PAL teams can be more explicitly defined and hence readily evident and measured.

5.1.2 Project Based Action-Learning (PAL) Framework The project and learning goals are the starting blocks of this learning framework. PAL teams are assigned specific tasks and evaluated with respect to predefined performance goals or expectations. Apart from certain job-related performance goals set by the company, individuals also set their individual learning goals. With the help of facilitators, team members apply their existing or newly acquired knowledge to the project tasks, as the project progresses.

5.1.3 Planning the PAL With an objective to drive the OL process, the PAL framework (Fig. 5.1) provides a structured framework for the different team-based learning activities by adopting the team learning concept (Poell and Van der Krogt 2003). Each participant is a member of a PAL project team with a pre-defined and sanctioned-performance goal, team, and individual learning objectives. The PAL provides a structured framework which serves as the OL vehicle for the different team-based learning activities. Through a systematic and phase implementation of PAL, it can be aimed at gradually instilling team and individual learning capability and mindset, build up the learning culture within an organization. Each PAL project goes through the four phased PLAN-ACT-LEARN-REFLECT cycle as shown in Fig. 5.2.

5.1.4 PAL Project-Based Goals and Process Each PAL team is formed according to their specific functions or needs. Each team is evaluated with reference to: • its predefined and agreed project performance; • learning goals or expectations.

5 Project Based Action Learning as the Vehicle

55

Goal Setting

PLAN Project

Learning Goals

Perform

Evaluate

Evaluations: Self-log book

Team Learning

LEARN

Project

ACT

Individual Learning

Facilitate

Facilitation by: leader, reviewer and LOFT

Evaluate

Performance assessments Project

Efficacies

REFLECT/ PERFORM

Performance

Learning Knowledge Competence Efficacy

Fig. 5.1 Project-team action learning framework (PAL)

Goals are of two main types: the work-related project goals and the learning goals, at both team and individual levels respectively. As the PAL project progresses, with the help of facilitators, PAL members apply their existing or newly acquired knowledge to the project tasks. The facilitation and evaluation process are designed to support and effect both individual as well as team learning as each team works towards the agreed project goals.

5.2 Team Learning Process Learning is thus taking place within teams and at individual levels, in each PAL team, learning can be divided into two main types: team level learning and individual learning (Fig. 5.3). With PAL teams formed, learning takes places within the project and also across projects. There are two types of project learning: Inter-project and Intra-project (Fig. 5.4).

56

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah

Goal Setting

PLAN Project

Learning Goals

LEARN

Evaluate

Perform

Evaluations: Self-log book

Team Learning

Project

ACT

Individual Learning

Facilitate

Evaluate

Performance assessments Project REFLECT/ PERFORM

Performance

Fig. 5.2 Setting PAL goals

Fig. 5.3 Learning within PAL

Efficacies

Learning Knowledge Competence Efficacy

Facilitation by: leader, reviewer and LOFT

5 Project Based Action Learning as the Vehicle

Acquisition of

57

Intraproject

knowledge and experience

Intraproject

Inter-project learning

Knowledge gained across projects

Intraproject

Fig. 5.4 Intra- and inter-learning in PAL

5.2.1 Inter-project Learning Knowledge is gained across projects. Learning teams acquire knowledge through projects and experiences, and bring along the learned knowledge to new projects. Infrastructure for learning and facilitations are vital for the inter-project learning to happen and make it as an integral part of the project. Knowledge sharing across the organization is emphasized within the concept of inter-project learning. Regarding supporting resources, technology and human resources aiming at sharing knowledge are essential for this type of learning to occur during the project life cycle.

5.2.2 Intra-project Learning Within a project, knowledge is created and shared. This supports the delivery of the project by acquiring and applying knowledge. Learning is taking place through the discussions among team members who are with mutual project goals. Intra-learning thus occurs throughout the project. This intra-learning cycle can be outlined by the phase of the project, such as routine reporting cycle and review meetings.

58

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah

5.3 Team Level Action Learning in PAL Teams Action learning plays a key role in the PAL. Fundamentally, learning is viewed as the process of adjusting behaviour in response to experience. This process is asserted by behavioural approach by directly linking to some actions that follows. Simply put, as interpreted by the roofs of this perspective, if no behavioural change is recorded, then no learning can be said to have taken place. Therefore, learning in PAL embraces the acquisition of existing and the development of new knowledge, attitudes and skills; the application of knowledge, attitudes and skills in existing or new contexts with the purpose of improving performance. Learning of PAL teams therefore involves the following, but not limited to: • • • • • • •

Goal setting Learning attitude Behaviour adjustments Development of learning skills Actions in learning Knowledge acquisition Creation of knowledge

To implement PAL, learning teams are selected (possibly be according to some prescribed set of criteria), and facilitated with specially designed learning setting or mechanisms. Empowerment experienced by individuals within the PAL facilitative setting transcending the normal operations of mind, enables autonomy and creativity of individuals. Within the PAL, there are tools or influencers to improve team communication as well the knowledge exchange, such as: • • • • •

dialogue, the effect of learning histories, leadership styles and management techniques, the role of organizational goal and strategy and the process of knowledge management.

Team learning is the central issue of in PAL. Team learning is not only to facilitate knowledge exchange but also bring about behavioural changes. This mindset changing process would bring effect to the current learning routines, and these routines are propelled into the new conditions. New findings or new knowledge, which are derived from shared vision and concerned goals, are therefore obtained.

5.4 Chapter Highlights • The project and learning goals are the starting blocks of this learning framework. PAL teams are assigned specific tasks and evaluated with respect to predefined performance goals or expectations.

5 Project Based Action Learning as the Vehicle

59

• Through a systematic and phase implementation of PAL, it can be aimed at gradually instilling team and individual learning capability and mindset, build up the learning culture within an organization. Each PAL project goes through the four phased PLAN-ACT-LEARN-REFLECT cycle. • The facilitation and evaluation process are designed to support and effect both individual as well as team learning as each team works towards the agreed project goals. • With PAL teams formed, learning takes places within the project and also across projects. There are two types of project learning: Inter-project and Intra-project. • Learning in PAL embraces the acquisition of existing and the development of new knowledge, attitudes and skills; the application of knowledge, attitudes and skills in existing or new contexts with the purpose of improving performance.

References Clarke J, Thorpe R, Anderson L, Gold J (2006) It’s all action, it’s all learning: action learning in SMEs. J Eur Ind Train 30(6):441–455 Loo ID (2006) Action and organizational learning in an elevator company. Learn Organ 13(2/3):204 Poell RF, Van der Krogt FJ (2003) Project-based learning in organizations: towards a methodology for learning in groups. J Work Learn 15(5):217–228 Revans RW (1971) Developing effective managers: a new approach to business education. Praegar, New York Revans RW (1982) The origins and growth of action learning. Chartwell Bratt, Bromley

Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the Associate Professor in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland. Dr. Law obtained her Ph.D. in Organization Learning and M.Phil. in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong. She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Development (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations.

60

K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed). Dr. Kong Bieng Chuah is Associate Professor of Systems Engineering & Engineering Department, City University of Hong Kong. He is a core faculty member of the Engineering Doctorate, M.Sc. Engineering Management and B.Eng. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management programmes. His current teaching and research focus on project management and project based organizational learning. He is a consultant in project management and organizational learning and conducts project management courses and workshops for industries. In his earlier years, Dr. Chuah was a mechanical engineer with expertise in engineering metrology and surface roughness characterisation. He advised on engineering measurement problems and calibration set-ups.

Chapter 6

Setting for a PAL Driven OL Kris M. Y. Law, Kong Bieng Chuah and Chris R. Cao

Abstract To facilitate the PAL as an effective vehicle for OL development, there are four supporting ‘pillars’, working complementarily with each other as the ‘foundation’. These pillars are ‘Policy and Strategy’, ‘OL Facilitation’, ‘Performance Management’ and ‘Resources and Infrastructure’ respectively. This chapter presents how these ‘pillars’ support the OL vehicle and their interrelationships.

6.1 The Supportive Setting for PAL The PAL framework is a project-based OL vehicle aiming at building up the learning culture for organizations intending to become LOs. There are some specific features of the PAL framework: • The learning culture is built first within the project team(s) and beyond throughout the organization. • The PAL framework requires a PAL team to have a challenge (the project) and pre-set learning goals with the organization committed to providing the necessary OL infrastructure, guidance, and facilitation. • The PAL process instils into the team members the practice of action and team learning while working towards a project that is of mutual interest and benefit. During the PAL process, each PAL team member supports and challenges each other leading to an elevated degree of individual and team learning. Each PAL project K. M. Y. Law (B) School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] K. B. Chuah Department of System Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] C. R. Cao Crest View Technology InVestment Ltd., Shenzhen, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_6

61

62

K. M. Y. Law et al.

helps to sow the seeds of OL. Its propagation, from the case experience shows, will lead to the building up of a sustainable learning culture in the organization. To facilitate the PAL as the vehicle for an organization’s OL development, there are four critical supporting ‘pillars’, as shown in Fig. 6.1. These ‘pillars’ work complementarily with each other as the ‘foundation’ of an infrastructure. They are ‘Policy and Strategy’, ‘OL Facilitation’, ‘Performance Management’ and ‘Resources and Infrastructure’ respectively.

Fig. 6.1 PAL and supporting environment

6 Setting for a PAL Driven OL

63

6.2 Facilitation The facilitation and evaluation in the framework are to affect both individual and team learning as the teamwork towards the project goals. The facilitator or reviewer plays an active role in the PAL process. He/she guides the team through the process of knowledge generation, application, retention and sharing. He/she also keeps an eye on individual development and learning process monitoring by providing regular evaluations and reviews. A LO facilitating team (LOFT) is established to support the various activities related to the PAL implementation. Members from the LOFT oversee and facilitate the various activities as in the PAL based OL process, observe the PAL team meetings, and provide feedback, both to individuals and to the team on its learning processes (as shown in Fig. 6.2). The LOFT serves not only as the coordinating unit of PAL activities, but also as a centralized resource point for PAL implementation. Through the facilitation process, facilitators seek to ensure that the PAL teams could maintain the ownership of their own agenda and their capacity for reflection and learning. Roles of the LOFT are described as: • Coordinator of PAL related resources matter • Conductor of evaluations for the PAL related performance measurement

Initial Stage

During the PAL process

Mature Stage of the PAL process

Autonomous state (beyond the mature stage)

Fig. 6.2 LOFT facilitation in PAL

Guiding and directing the formulation of PAL teams Enabling the participation of PAL members

Observing the PAL process Standing by to provide prompt support and interventions

Observing and Reviewing the PAL process Creating and Supporting the appropriate learning conditions

Standing by to provide prompt support and interventions

64

K. M. Y. Law et al.

• Facilitator of PAL process • Administrator of communication, between teams and company • Advisors and reviewers of progress of PAL teams The LOFT has a significant role in guiding and directing the PAL teams in the early stage. As the PAL teams become more familiar and confident with the procedures, processes and norms of PAL, LOFT’s role becomes one of helping to maintain in the PAL teams the cooperative mode during the later stages. This shared the power over the PAL process with the PAL teams. The PAL members need less of the LOFT’s intervention as the PAL projects progress to the later stages. The PAL teams tend to become more integrated and effective at this stage. Each PAL team has the ownership of the PAL project, while the LOFT is standing by to provide occasional intervention as and when it is needed. The autonomy of the PAL teams is respected especially during the PAL’s final stage. The main responsibility of the LOFT at this stage is to continue to help and support the conditions within which the PAL members can perform and learn on their own.

6.2.1 Extended Facilitation in PAL Setting The early studies on PAL (Law and Chuah 2004; Chuah and Law 2006; Law 2007) indicated the need for OL facilitation outside the PAL team membership. As one of the four supporting pillars of PAL-driven OL practice, responsibilities of LOFT include: • • • • • •

informing PAL teams to follow the stipulated learning process, managing the documents and information about PAL projects, coordinating training resources for PAL teams, responding to participants’ inquiries related to the PAL process, evaluating PAL teams’ learning performance, and acting as a liaison office between senior management and PAL teams.

Cao et al. (2012) later proposed and empirically verified that PAL facilitators should play the roles of both “learning motivation reinforcers” and “team learning effecters” to enable the PAL process. On the one hand, PAL facilitators need to enhance PAL participants’ motivation, involvement and commitment toward their respective PAL projects through extensive communication. On the other hand, they need to act as a proactive enabler of teams’ in-depth dialogue and critical reflection which will affect PAL team learning. These two extended roles will help PAL participants to: • Identify the focus and value of their PAL project • Reflect on and build up their positive attitudes toward PAL • Resolve team conflicts and reduce aggressive/defensive behaviour by using dialogue • Achieve deeper learning in their PAL project through facilitated team reflection

6 Setting for a PAL Driven OL

65

There are similarities and differences between a PAL facilitator and an action learning coach. Action learning is a dynamic process that involves a small group of people with diverse backgrounds solving real-life management problems, while focusing on how their learning can benefit individuals, groups, and the larger organization (Marquardt et al. 2009). An action learning coach is responsible for triggering ad hoc, occasional learning of the group through asking probing or reflective questions and giving feedbacks to the group (Carson and Marquardt 2004). By focusing the group on learning rather than just solving problems, the action learning coach plays a more comprehensive role than the general group facilitator. Similarly, the PAL facilitator is also responsible for effecting the learning of the project team, but usually facing a tougher situation. PAL is undertaken in organizational learning setting to achieve the dual purposes of project and learning goals. For the experience of the earlier rounds of PAL implementation, it is noted that PAL participants could be more defensive and poorly motivated than those in the general action learning groups, as most PAL projects would require participants to critically reflect on and better their working processes, behaviours and attitudes to improve performance or resolve problems. Hence, the relatively passive and unstructured interventions of the action learning coach are not effective enough to address the difficulties associated with PAL-driven OL implementation, e.g. poor learning motivation and lack of individual or team learning capability. The PAL facilitator needs to play more proactive and structured roles and interventions to redress the situation. Table 6.1 summarizes the comparisons and contrasts between the general group facilitator, action learning coach and the PAL facilitator. Table 6.1 Comparisons and contrasts between three types of facilitators Comparisons and contrasts

General group facilitator

Action learning coach

PAL facilitator

Context of facilitation

General group situations, e.g. work group, project team, psychotherapy group

A wide range of individual and group learning situations, non-stakeholders of the problem

A well-structured learning process for achieving long-term OL goals, stakeholders of the problem

Facilitation objectives

Problem solving, decision making, team building and facilitation, achieving performance goals, psychological treatments

Triggering ad hoc, occasional learning through interaction with peers and reflection on experience, actions and results

Enhancing PAL members’ motivation to be actively involved; building up learning capability at both individual and team level

Facilitation interventions

Unstructured, informal interventions, e.g. games, asking clarifying, probing questions

Unstructured, informal interventions, e.g. asking clarifying, probing and reflective questions

Structured, proactive interventions, e.g. intensive dialogue and communication sessions and training programs

66

K. M. Y. Law et al.

A Problem Driven OL Facilitation Approach Monitor OL Implementation Status

Identify OL Implementation Problems

•Observing the process and status of OL implementation

•Examining the status of each OL field and dimension

•Using the Focus/Will/Capability based OL evaluation instrument periodically to monitor the status of OL implementation

•Identifying the fields and dimensions with poor statuses •Talking with OL members to clarify and confirm their problems

Introduce Proper OL Facilitation Interventions •Applying the developed facilitation interventions accordingly to help OL members to overcome their problems •Continuing to observe the process and status of OL implementation

Fig. 6.3 A problem driven OL facilitation approach

Fig. 6.4 A PAL facilitation model for PAL driven OL

6.2.2 Toward a Practical PAL Facilitation Model A practical facilitation model specifically for PAL is developed to specify the roles of PAL facilitators, in which problem-driven approach is adopted (Fig. 6.3). There are a series of periodic or timely “interventions” in the model, which are mainly designed for facilitators to intervene in the learning process of PAL teams so as to enhance the learning dynamics in team, capabilities and effectiveness. The PAL facilitation model summarizing the relevant interventions is shown (see Fig. 6.4). The details of the model, such as the meanings of the interventions and how they can be properly applied, will be discussed in Chap. 10.

6 Setting for a PAL Driven OL

67

6.3 Performance Management Effective teams should demonstrate synergy. Inappropriate performance measurement is one of the barriers that prevent this from happening. Performance measurement appraisal and reward system should not just focus on individuals. For OL to be effective, team concept and team performance are the concerns. Thus, appropriate performance measurement is needed to take these into account. Importance of performance measurement for learning teams is manifold. It helps the goal clarification, facilitates process monitoring, performance appraisals, and incorporation with reward systems. Hence, in process of objective setting, performance measurement is an important aspect of management particularly in OL, as it determines the level of learning expected of the learning individuals or teams. Team learning has not only to facilitate knowledge exchange but also brings about behavioural changes. There is a need to investigate measures that are associated with both because of a team learning process. Furthermore, the outcome of PAL team learning is measurable in terms of the predefined PAL project goals.

6.3.1 What Should the Learning Teams Measure? From the many reported studies, knowledge accumulation is very much associated with learning attitude, effort, and method and team performance is affected by learning capability and outcome of team members. In the PAL teams, the process of learning is dynamic and that knowledge acquisition and sharing occur at several levels. Researchers have proposed the four dimensions that determine team performance (Hackman and Oldham 1980; Katzenbach and Smith 1993) analyzed the effectiveness, efficiency, learning and growth and team member satisfaction. In organizations which are employing performance measurement for business performance, one of these measures is balanced score card (Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1996). Such measures are not designed for team based OL process like the PAL teams. The difficulty could be because such cause-effect relationships are not straightforward and not clearly defined. The creation and the build-up of a PAL team is a complex process. To measure the PAL team’s performance properly, we need to investigate the interactions between individuals and teams more thoroughly. Thus, the PAL performance measurement is focusing on several aspects: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Learning effectiveness (how knowledge is acquired and adopted); Efficiency (how well knowledge is applied for the project achievement); Motivation (how team members are motivated towards learning); Review and monitoring (how the learning is organized, reviewed and monitored); Efficacy in knowledge acquisition, retention and application (only for the researcher’s data collection).

68

K. M. Y. Law et al.

Table 6.2 Evaluations of PAL Dimension

What to measure (Anchors)

Measurements The team

Individual

Mindset (motivation)

• Motivation towards learning

• Team performance

Performance (project and learning)

• Project performance • How knowledge is acquired and shared • Application of knowledge

3 views evaluation: • Self-assessment • Evaluation by leader/supervisor • Peer evaluation

Reaction (efficacy)

Feelings towards learning

Collective efficacya

Self-efficacya

Self-reflection, continuous review and monitoring

Self-learning log book

a Remarks: To complement the PAL performance measurement, collective and individual efficacies

are measured during the PAL implementation, for the researcher’s data collection and analysis

6.3.2 The Evaluation Dimensions Appropriate performance evaluation linked to OL activities is needed to ensure that participation and performance in OL related work/activities is valued, recognized, and rewarded. The need and usefulness of making a staff’s PAL performance is an integral part of his/her overall performance evaluation. The performance management measures can be of multi-perspectives: individual level, team level and organizational level. The dimensions of the PAL performance evaluation system are (Table 6.2): • mindset, • reaction, and • performance. For the forms of PAL evaluation, please see Appendix A.

6.3.3 Focus/Will/Capability (F/W/C) Performance System As mentioned in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.2.3) and Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.4.3), performance evaluation instrument that can be used during the facilitation process of the PAL driven OL implementation, is needed. Grounding on the evaluation dimensions (Sect. 6.3.2), and the heuristic approach for LO assessment and developed by Smith and Tosey (1999), a Focus/Will/Capacity (F/W/C) performance model was developed for PAL.

6 Setting for a PAL Driven OL

69

The F/W/C PAL performance model has the following features which are considered appropriate for the PAL setting: 1. The model helps facilitators to diagnose the learning status of each PAL team so that appropriate facilitation interventions can be introduced in a timely manner. In other words, what we attempt to measure here is the performance potential (e.g. learning progress, dynamics and climate) of each PAL team rather than assessing its learning outcomes. 2. The “learning” in or by an organization has both political and social properties and is reasonable to be assessed via a heuristic approach. 3. The F/W/C system provides well-structured leading indicators (“fields”) for OL performance. The relatively broad and generic definition of each “field” presented by its authors allows for further developments to meet the specific needs of certain OL environment with practical organizational settings. 4. The F/W/C-Performance system has the good potential to link OL with the business outcomes or operational results. 5. Lastly, the F/W/C model highlights the importance of the overlapping areas. Only the OL process that can foster and enlarge the F/W/C intersections will lead to better organizational performance. The implementation of F/W/C system in PAL will be further detailed in Chap. 10 (Sect. 10.3).

6.4 Policy and Strategy In an organization where PAL is adopted as the vehicle of its OL development, the organizational strategy and policy should favour its implementation. As a prerequisite to successful implementation of PAL, OL strategy policy should provide clear direction and depth of commitment. The policy and strategy setting may depend on the company or organization’s strategic direction and decisions, the decisions at strategic level thus determines the policy and governance relating to the organizational learning activities and the corresponding work-related issues. This ‘pillar’ is the foremost one as it further determines the PAL processes, facilitation, the resources allocation and as well the performance management. The need and desire of the organizations to advance and the will of management are the critical drivers for these OL favourable polices. This will of management can be in the form of a facilitative leadership with strategic thinking and vision, which is crucial in the process of transformation into a learning organization. As discussed in Sect. 4.1, strong leader committed to building a shared vision, empowering, and inspiring people is needed to drive the OL process.

70

K. M. Y. Law et al.

The importance of the role of leadership in OL has also been widely recognized. Researchers have identified the various roles of a leader in learning organizations. Among these roles, the leader involves creating a foundation of purpose and core values within the organization, which are crucial to the building of shared visions and the corresponding facilitating processes.

6.5 Resources and Infrastructure To effect PAL, a supportive environment is needed. The components include relevant OL related policy and strategy, resources and technology infrastructure, support, facilitation, and OL linked performance evaluation system. The establishment of an information technology infrastructure provides a forum for knowledge sharing and information exchange. Such an infrastructure provides a network which supports PAL activities and facilitation, allows PAL members to exchange insights and share information, and as well a communication channel for feedbacks and reflections. With the support of Information technology (IT), the enhanced intellectual level and learning motivation can be expected from PAL implementation with technology-driven learning support system. The availability and accessibility of information helps members promote sharing and learning, and the dynamism of knowledge is thus ensured. Therefore, an integrative Organizational Learning Supporting System (OLSS) is called upon to facilitate the PAL implementation. There are some pre-requisites for the successful adoption of OLSS, such as: • • • • •

large base of installed computers in the workplace, network security, infrastructure, suitable bandwidth, reliable access to the internet, human acceptance of cyberspace.

An OLSS is developed with the aim to provide effective PAL facilitation, which is a computer-based system that can handle cumulating technical or intellectual knowledge and support multi-direction interactions, discussions and knowledge sharing among PAL members. There are several benefits of using OLSS, including flexibility for learning, learning resources enrichment with emphasis on knowledge, ease of installation and maintenance. By using the OLSS, reference information, materials are made available electronically and therefore the provision of resources can be enhanced. While individual learners can contribute to the knowledge database, the supporting system acts as a knowledge source for explorative and open learning at both individual and collective levels. This kind of interactions between individual learners enhance the

6 Setting for a PAL Driven OL

71

knowledge acquisition and exchange. The design and core features of the OLSS for PAL facilitation are discussed in Sect. 8.3.

6.6 Chapter Highlights • To facilitate the PAL as the vehicle for an organization’s OL development, there are four critical supporting pillars. These ‘pillars’ work complementarily with each other as the ‘foundation’ of an infrastructure. They are ‘Policy and Strategy’, ‘OL Facilitation’, ‘Performance Management’ and ‘Resources and Infrastructure’ respectively. • The facilitation and evaluation in the framework are to affect both individual and team learning as the teamwork towards the project goals. An LO facilitating team (LOFT) is established to support the various activities related to the PAL implementation. • A practical facilitation model specifically for PAL is developed to specify the roles of PAL facilitators, in which problem-driven approach is adopted. There are a series of periodic or timely “interventions” in the model, which are mainly designed for facilitators to intervene in the learning process of PAL teams so as to enhance the learning dynamics in team, capabilities and effectiveness. • The policy and strategy setting is the foremost pillar as it further determines the PAL processes, facilitation, the resources allocation and as well the performance management. • To effect PAL, a supportive environment is needed. The components include relevant OL related policy and strategy, resources and technology infrastructure, support, facilitation, and OL linked performance evaluation system.

References Cao R, Chuah KB, Chau YC, Kwong KF, Law MY (2012) The role of facilitators in project action learning implementation. Learn Organ 19(5):414–427 Carson B, Marquardt M (2004) Coaching via action learning. ASTD Organ Dev/Lead 1(3) Chuah KB, Law KMY (2006) PAL in action: a company’s OL experience. Team Perform Manag: Int J 12(1/2):55–60 Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1980) Work redesign. Addison-Wesley, Reading Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harv Bus Rev 79 Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harv Bus Rev 74:75–85 Katzenbach JR, Smith DK (1993) The wisdom of teams. Harper Collins Law KMY, Chuah KB (2004) Project-based action learning as learning approach in learning organization—the theory and framework. Team Perform Manag: Int J 10(7/8):178–186

72

K. M. Y. Law et al.

Law KMY (2007) The development and implementation of project action learning framework (PAL)-from theory to practice. Ph.D. thesis, City University of Hong Kong Marquardt MJ, Leonard S, Freedman A, Hill C (2009) Action learning for developing leaders and organizations. American Psychological Press, Washington, DC Smith PAC, Tosey P (1999) Assessing the learning organization: part 1—theoretical foundations. Learn Organ 6(2):70–75

Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the Associate Professor in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland. Dr. Law obtained her Ph.D. in Organization Learning and M.Phil. in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong. She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Development (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations. Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed). Dr. Kong Bieng Chuah is Associate Professor of Systems Engineering & Engineering Department, City University of Hong Kong. He is a core faculty member of the Engineering Doctorate, M.Sc. Engineering Management and B.Eng. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management programmes. His current teaching and research focus on project management and project based organizational learning. He is a consultant in project management and organizational learning and conducts project management courses and workshops for industries. In his earlier years, Dr. Chuah was a mechanical engineer with expertise in engineering metrology and surface roughness characterisation. He advised on engineering measurement problems and calibration set-ups.

6 Setting for a PAL Driven OL

73 Dr. Chris R. Cao received his B.Sc. in Computer Science & Technology in 2005 from Nanjing University. He obtained his M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Engineering Management from City University of Hong Kong. His research interests include organizational learning, project management, corporate governance, staff training and development, etc. He currently serves as the director of a technology investment group, giving support to business development and internal control of the corporation.

Chapter 7

Knowledge in PAL Kris M. Y. Law and Shuang Geng

Abstract Different modes of knowledge conversion can happen in the PAL process as members need to exchange information, discuss issues, apply knowledge to tackle problems, and document their updates. Learning through the project process is one of the popular approaches to train more “knowledge workers” within an organization. This chapter discusses the connections between Knowledge Management (KM) and PAL, and the KM processes in projects from the informatic perspective to deepen the understanding of PAL. A project stakeholder-task-file triad is used to understand knowledge acquisition, creation, sharing, retention and reuse processes in project.

7.1 Knowledge in Project Teams The Project-based Action Learning (PAL) framework integrates learning and projects towards organizational learning ideals. In this case, the PAL project is the result of the application and exchange of knowledge. The idea of “learning by doing” and action learning make clear the need for PAL. With the rejection of the conventional perception of projects as a phenomenon isolated from its history, stripped of its contemporary social and spatial context and independent of the future, projects in organizations are studied in a contextual view (Grabher 2004). The essential processes of creating and sedimenting knowledge are seen to arise at the interface between projects and organizations, networks, and institutions in and through which projects operate (Scarbrough 2003). The project-based learning and retaining of knowledge in organizations is drawing attention from more and more researchers. Ahern et al. (2014) adopted a problem-solving perspective and analysed the role of knowledge formation and learning in managing complex projects. K. M. Y. Law School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] S. Geng (B) College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_7

75

76

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

Learning organizations are investing resources in human capital development. Learning through the PAL project process is considered effective in accumulating more knowledge. In the PAL, knowledge management processes can be observed. Knowledge processes involve adding actionable value to information by capturing tacit knowledge and converting it to explicit knowledge; by filtering, storing, retrieving and testing new knowledge, during the intra-project and inter-project learning. Knowledge is interpreted, aggregated, and shared through the interactions of members in PAL teams. This knowledge becomes embedded in the routines and practices through the repeated rounds of experiences by individual members. This is consistent with the concept advocated by action learning. However, the characterization of the contribution from PAL projects to the organizational knowledge and organizational learning faces difficulties as there is no objective and direct measure of the organization knowledge growth. This is mainly because knowledge consists of truths and beliefs, perspectives and concepts, judgments and expectations, methodologies and know-how (Geng et al. 2018).

7.2 Intra-project Knowledge Development Based on Nonaka’s dimensions of tacit and explicit knowledge, the tacit dimension of knowledge is rooted in action, experience, and involvement in a specific context. The explicit dimension of knowledge is articulated, codified and communicated in symbolic form and/or natural language. Besides the tacit and explicit type knowledge, embedded knowledge refers to the knowledge that is locked in processes, culture or structures. Knowledge can also be divided into individual, organizational and structural knowledge. Individual knowledge resides only in the minds of employees. Organizational knowledge results from learning that occurs on a group at division level. Structural knowledge is embedded in the culture and make-up of the organization through processes, manuals, business rules and codes of conduct and ethics. The Intra-project knowledge development is replying largely on individuals. As put by Senge (1990), the knowledge and skills of its workforce, and the knowledge platform upon which these skills are based, govern the performance of a company. The fulfilment of PAL project objectives requires the PAL members to apply their knowledge and skills. The individual knowledge can be either tacit or explicit and has multiple dimensions. Knowledge at individual level is then shared among PAL members within the project team, the experience gained is then brought forward to another project, the knowledge resides within the PAL team will be stored and reused (Fig. 7.1).

7 Knowledge in PAL Fig. 7.1 Knowledge development in the intra-project learning process

77

Acquisition of knowledge and experience

Intra project

Intra project Knowledge gained across projects

Intra project

7.3 Inter-project Knowledge Development Knowledge management is central to the development and maintenance of PAL team competency. In the PAL project setting process, a preliminary project requirement analysis is required to ensure if the PAL team has the capability of accomplishing the project. Knowledge competency is an important aspect in this consideration if the project relies on the capabilities of individuals within PAL teams. The capability requirement analysis provides motivation for learning among PAL members and leads to knowledge accumulation. The knowledge process includes: • knowledge creation and sensing, • knowledge organizing and capturing, • knowledge sharing and dissemination. In this case, the PAL provides an effective framework in enabling individual learning in the project process and enhancing the learning between teams. Besides the knowledge creation and sensing, organizing and capturing, sharing and dissemination, the ‘specificity of project learning goals’ and ‘knowledge transferability’ are also the importance knowledge activities in the Inter-project and Intraproject learning. The “specificity of project learning goals” refers to the planning of learning activities in the course of a PAL project, this enhances the effectiveness of the PAL. The “knowledge transferability” (Argote and Ingram 2000) describes reusability of lessons or knowledge learnt in the future projects by the same PAL team (Intra-project) and also shared among PAL teams (Inter-project), see Fig. 7.2.

78

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

Knowledge shared across PAL teams

PAL team

PAL team

Inter -project learning

PAL team

Fig. 7.2 Knowledge development at Inter-project learning

7.4 Knowledge Culture Learning culture is an enabler for the transfer and creation of knowledge. Communication among PAL members within and across PAL teams plays important role in managing and changing the knowledge and learning culture. Communication also plays important role in management of PAL projects. Besides the information exchange between project members and stakeholders, the sharing of personal opinions and affective feelings has a subtle influence on the values and beliefs of people. There are four elements to characterize this influence on PAL: • • • •

motivation of learning, willingness of sharing, attitude of cooperating, motivation of innovative thinking.

The first two sub-criteria directly evaluate whether the project objectives and management settings could motivate learning and encourage knowledge sharing. The “attitude of cooperating” is critical to the interaction between team members and the willingness of team-based learning to solve problems. The “motivation of innovative thinking” is also critical to the generation of new ideas and the formation of new knowledge. As a result, all these knowledge activities within and across PAL teams enhance the organizational knowledge accumulation.

7 Knowledge in PAL

79

7.5 Knowledge Management and PAL PAL based OL serves as a framework which creates a purposeful setting for team members to meet, work on project goals and learn together. In PAL projects, individual learning is facilitated and evaluated as an integral part of project management. PAL utilize an information platform, named OLSS, to enable project members to access, exchange and update the project documents. PAL and Knowledge Management (KM) have very close connections as they are both concerned of the knowledge activities, including knowledge acquisition, creation, sharing, retention and reuse. PAL aims to provide guidance and tools for OL implementation, while KM attempts to provide an approach to both researchers and practitioners to investigate the KM processes in a project. Their requirements of information platforms share some commonalities and differences. KM requires the supporting system to not only provide information access and storage service, but also knowledge discovery service such as visualization, data analytics, and recommendation. Project settings determine the outcome of project-based learning. From the informatic perspective, knowledge is created, captured, shared and used by different project elements in the project lifecycle. Three elements, including project task, project stakeholder, and project file, are identified and used to investigate the knowledge activities in project-based learning process.

7.5.1 Project Stakeholder-Task-File Triad Most, if not all, projects have multiple stages and a list of key project tasks in each project stage. Each project task provides project managers with a smaller scope of focus where the relationships between multiple stakeholders and project files are easily identified. A general project task flow is created by modelling the sequence and dependence relationship between these tasks (as illustrated in Fig. 7.3). The arrows in the figure represent the information flow between connected tasks. This project task flow provides an overview of project tasks and helps to illustrate the knowledge activities interweaved. Project stakeholders are individuals and organizations who are actively involved in the project, or whose interests may be positively or negatively affected as a result of project execution or successful project completion (Rose 2013). Some key project stakeholders include: Project manager, Customer, Sponsor, Functional manager. Each project stakeholder has his/her responsibilities and managed tasks in the project process. Project information is usually captured and shared in multiple types of project documents. From the information management perspective, the project documents form a small knowledge base for project stakeholders. The actions on project documents involve KM activities such as knowledge creation, sharing, and reuse. Using the concept of project stakeholder-task-file triad which represents the combination of project stakeholder, task, and file, a project can be decomposed into

80

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

Fig. 7.3 Project task flow

multiple project triads. These small units can help to investigate how knowledge is created, captured, shared, and used in the project process (Fig. 7.4). Based on the project tasks, stakeholders, and documents listed by the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) guide (Rose 2013), a list of project triads can be created Appendix II: Project stakeholder-task-file triads.

KM activities:

Project

Creation

tasks

Capture Sharing Use …

Fig. 7.4 KM activities and project triad

Project

Project

stakeholders

files

7 Knowledge in PAL

81

7.5.2 KM Activities in Project Project stakeholder-task-file triad provides an approach to decompose project settings into smaller settings thus to examine how knowledge activities are triggered. Using the “project evaluation and selection” task as an example, Fig. 7.5 presents the connections between KM activities and the three project elements. The project stakeholders involved in this task are identified and listed in the oval. The project documents used and created in completing this task are identified and listed in the cylinder. In completing this task, the evaluation of multiple project alternatives requires the stakeholders to provide their insights into the projects, discuss their opinions about the selection criteria and project ratings. To understand these processes from a knowledge perspective and integrate KM with the project decision making process, the practitioner can: 1. Keep a log of the stakeholder consideration and discussion, formulate the underlying logic and value, and add the “formula” to existing knowledge base for future use 2. Let stakeholders treat knowledge management as one of the considerations or criteria when evaluating and selecting the projects.

Fig. 7.5 KM and “project evaluation and selection”

82

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

The project stakeholder-task-file triad serves as a heuristic approach for the integration of KM with project management, this allows knowledge perspective to be adopted in the decision-making process and knowledge is recognized as a core competitive value in the PAL project process.

7.5.3 KM Based Decision Making in PAL The implementation of PAL involves multiple stages, such as initiation, facilitation, and evaluations. Different tasks are performed in each stage by different stakeholders. Meanwhile, project files are created, communicated, and stored. Integrating the concept of knowledge management with the decision making in PAL provide opportunities for achieving both learning and knowledge growth in an organization (Fig. 7.6). This section discusses the knowledge-based project selection as an example to illustrate how KM is interweaved with PAL processes. Project selection is a process aiming at evaluating an individual project or groups of projects and choosing to implement a set of them so that the objectives of the parent organization are achieved (Meredith and Mantel 2003). The group of decision makers is usually composed of various functional experts of the organization. In addition to the decision makers providing their respective insight about the project from various perspectives, the project evaluation should be aligned with the organization strategies and objectives in both the short and long term. In organizations that view knowledge as their core competitive advantage, such as high-tech companies, the sustainable and continuing advancement of knowledge is a key to success. A framework has been proposed by Geng et al. (2018) to link project selection with organizational knowledge development. This knowledge-based project selection framework utilizes the knowledge management models in creating a structured evaluation metric (Table 7.1) to measure project contribution to organization knowledge. Project selection is performed based on AHP and the new evaluation metric.

7.6 Chapter Highlights • Knowledge is interpreted, aggregated, and shared through the interactions of members in PAL teams. This knowledge becomes embedded in the routines and practices through the repeated rounds of experiences by individual members. • Knowledge management is central to the development and maintenance of PAL team competency. The capability requirement analysis provides motivation for learning among PAL members and leads to knowledge accumulation. • Learning culture is an enabler for the transfer and creation of knowledge. Communication among PAL members within and across PAL teams plays important role in managing and changing the knowledge and learning culture.

7 Knowledge in PAL

83

Fig. 7.6 PAL integrated with knowledge-based decision making

• Knowledge is created, captured, shared and used by different project elements in the project lifecycle. Project stakeholder-task-file triad provides an approach to decompose project settings into smaller settings thus to examine how knowledge activities are triggered. • Integrating the concept of knowledge management with the decision making in PAL provide opportunities for achieving both learning and knowledge growth in an organization.

84

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

Table 7.1 Project evaluation perspectives, criteria and sub-criteria Perspective

Criteria

Sub-criteria

Knowledge contribution

Individual learning

Sympathized knowledge Conceptual knowledge Systemic knowledge Operational knowledge

Organizational level learning

Organization knowledge creation Knowledge sharing and dissemination Specificity of project learning goals Knowledge transferability

Organization culture change

Continuous learning Inquiry and dialogue Team learning Embedded system System connection Empowerment Provide leadership

Economic

Sales increase

Technology

Improvement

Operation

Process efficiency

Cost reduction Adoption of new technology Process effectiveness Quality Strategy

Benefit measurability

Customer and partner

Internal customer

Strategic importance External customer Employee Supplier Resource

Project estimated duration Fund requirement Personnel requirement

7 Knowledge in PAL

85

References Ahern T, Leavy B, Byrne PJ (2014) Complex project management as complex problem solving: a distributed knowledge management perspective. Int J Proj Manag 32(8):1371–1381 Argote L, Ingram P (2000) Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 82(1):150–169 Geng S, Chuah KB, Law KM, Cheung CK, Chau YC, Rui C (2018) Knowledge contribution as a factor in project selection. Proj Manag J 49(1):25–41 Grabher G (2004) Learning in projects, remembering in networks? Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. Eur Urban Reg Stud 11(2):103–123 Meredith JR, Mantel SJJ (2003) Project management: a managerial approach. Cardiff Univ 13(3):7–9 Rose KH (2013) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® ; Guide), Fifth Edition. Proj Manag J 44:e1-e1 Scarbrough H (2003) Knowledge management, HRM and the innovation process. Int J Manpow 24(5):501–516 Senge PM (1990) The art and practice of the learning organization

Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the Associate Professor in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland. Dr. Law obtained her Ph.D. in Organization Learning and M.Phil. in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong. She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Development (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations. Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed).

86

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng Dr. Shuang Geng obtained her B.S. degree in engineering (in 2013) and Ph.D. degree (in 2017) from the College of Science and Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China. She is currently Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Management Science Department, College of Management, and Greater Bay Area International Institute for Innovation in Shen Zhen University. Her research interests include Project and Team Management, Recommender Systems, Learning Technologies, Heuristic Optimization Algorithms. Her papers appear in Computers & Education, Project Management Journal, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, etc.

Part III

Setting the PAL Driven LO

This part serves as a Guidebook for Organizational Practitioners who are keen to adopt PAL as a vehicle to drive OL for advancements. The part is divided into 4 chapters in the sequence of the PAL driven OL process: Stage Stage Stage Stage

0—Preparing for PAL 1—Starting the PAL 2—Facilitating and Evaluating PAL 3—Closing and Managing Knowledge of PAL.

Chapter 8

Stage 0—Preparing a PAL Driven OL K. F. Kwong and Y. C. Chau

Abstract In preparing a PAL driven OL, various activities and preparations are needed to be done, starting by assessing the readiness towards the Learning organization, then to check whether the supportive policy and resources are being put in place. Steps for realizing the PAL supporting pillars would also be addressed.

8.1 Readiness Check Before launching any learning activities, it is necessary to know whether the organization is “ready” for the PAL. The instrument Readiness for Organizational Learning and Evaluation Instrument (ROLE) developed by Preskill and Torres (1999) is used. The ROLE is designed to examine an organization’s infrastructure and environment which are the underlying foundations for OL implementation, which strongly influence the OL process. The elements of the organization’s infrastructure and environment include culture, leadership, communication, systems, and structures. Measuring these elements helps to indicate how learning is facilitated or inhibited. The evaluation on OL readiness helps an organization to know its status quo and how to prepare for the OL implementation. The results can offer OL practitioners a good reference by identifying the concerned areas or areas in needs for management interventions.

8.1.1 The Design of ROLE There are six dimensions of total 78 items in the ROLE: Culture, Leadership, Systems and Structures, Communication, Teams and Evaluation (Appendix B). The six K. F. Kwong (B) PuraPharm International (H.K.) Ltd., Hong Kong, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] Y. C. Chau City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_8

89

90

K. F. Kwong and Y. C. Chau

abovementioned dimensions reflect the contemporary views on the OL processes and practices. Culture Culture influences the way people treat and react to each other. It shapes the way people feel about the company and the work they do; the way they interpret and perceive the actions taken by others; the expectations they have regarding changes in their work or in the business; and how they view those changes. Leadership Leadership support must come from the very top of the organization. Leaders of an LO must involve its members in the development of a learning vision. They must then work to ensure that the organization’s systems and structures support the vision’s implementation throughout the organization. It is important that employees routinely hear and see their leaders engaging in learning activities, talking with others about learning, and planning future learning initiatives. Communication This refers to how information is communicated to organization members and the organization’s external constituents is a key determinant of the extent to which an organization wishes to learn. Indeed, the entry point for any learning to occur is communication. Systems and Structures The systems and structures of an organization mediate organization members’ ability to interact, collaborate, and communicate with each other—the success of OL and evaluative inquiry efforts. When an organization’s structure is developed with a system’s perspective, members come to understand what they do and how they contribute to other employees’ work, and ultimately to the organization’s success. Teams Many organizations structure their work processes in ways that bring employees together to work on organizational issues. Team learning is where individuals come to know themselves and each other better in the process. In general, teamwork is one of the key building blocks for effective OL. Evaluation Evaluation is a process of systematic inquiry to provide information for decisionmaking about some issue, program, project, process, organization, system or product. Evaluation and reward systems are designed to rekindle interest in performance for its own sake, as well as to link that performance to the mission and vision of the organization.

8 Stage 0—Preparing a PAL Driven OL

91

8.1.2 Exercising the ROLE Check There are 78 Likert scale items in the ROLE, scored from 1 to 5 (“Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”). In the administration of the data collection, there are some rules to follow: • it is important to emphasize that there are no right or wrong answers. What matters most is their opinion based on their experiences. • the organization treats individuals’ responses confidentially to secure the true answers. The ROLE questionnaire can be distributed to the respondents, in either hard or soft copies.

8.2 Supportive Policy and Resources Before kicking start the PAL, ensuring the readiness of supportive policy and resources is essential. Effective OL is when all individuals and teams together purposefully bring learning at the organizational level to greater heights. This can only be achieved through the strong communication of a shared vision and the demonstration of effective leadership. With commitment from top leaders, supportive policy and resources will be put in place.

8.2.1 Leadership Commitment Leadership commitment leads to a shared vision, to provide the resources needed, to delegate authority, and to celebrate learning successes (Senge 1990). In this regard, supportive policy committed by the top management is essential. This includes a learning motivating performance management and evaluation system, in which incentives are used to reward innovation and knowledge contribution.

8.2.2 Supporting Pillars As in Chap. 6, the setting for a PAL driven OL is supported by four pillars: Policy and Strategy, Facilitation, Resources and Infrastructure, Performance Management. Figure 8.1 outlines the steps in realizing the 4 supporting pillars before starting the PAL. Remarks: • Steps 1–3 correspond to the realization of “Policy and Strategy” pillar.

92

K. F. Kwong and Y. C. Chau

Readiness check • Learning organization readiness

Vision realization • Learning vision & mission establishment

Strategy formation • Learning framework identification

Learning facilitation • Learning supporting elements development

Performance measurement • Learning performance evaluation

Fig. 8.1 Steps for realizing the PAL supporting pillars

• Step 4 corresponds to the realization of “Facilitation” and “Resources and Infrastructure” pillars. • The last Step 5 corresponds to the realization of “Performance Management” pillar. Step 1 Readiness Check • Readiness check is the first step to check the organization towards the LO, once an organization decided to adopt OL. • Next, is to check whether the resources are in place, a clear learning strategy should be set out and promoted by the management. Step 2 Vision realization • This step includes the establishment of clear leaning vision and mission by the management, both the short-term and long-term goals. Step 3 Strategy formation • With the goals set out by the management, a suitable learning framework should be identified to attain those targets, which including the specific project goals, the need for different learning programs at various learning stages. Not only to enhance individual learning and knowledge but also learning in teams. Step 4 Learning facilitation • PAL requires participants to take on responsibility for their own learning. The facilitation interventions will be provided if PAL teams and members face difficulties or barriers to affect their learning. • With the support of Information technology (IT), an OL supporting system is developed to serve as the facilitating infrastructure for PAL. This interactive platform can also be used to promote the inter-communication and sharing among PAL members. Step 5 Performance measurement • After the learning strategy has been implemented, it needs to be monitored, evaluated and refined. An OL evaluation instrument is required to monitor the OL implementation process and to evaluate its effectiveness.

8 Stage 0—Preparing a PAL Driven OL

93

8.2.3 Conducting Readiness Check The readiness check is to be taken up by the management and the facilitation team, as indicated in Table 8.1. From Table 8.1, Policy and Strategy, Facilitation, Resources and Infrastructure and Performance Management are responsible by the management level, while facilitation team will be taking care of Facilitation, Resources and Infrastructure and Performance Management. They need to ensure all required activities are being put in place before launching the PAL project. Checklist can be referred to Appendix IV Readiness Check. When all items in the checklist are answered with “Yes”, all the supporting pillars within the PAL framework can be classified as installed and PAL activities can then be kicked off.

8.3 OLSS With the support of Information technology (IT), PAL implementation with technology-driven learning support system, can benefit from not only the enhanced intellectual level, but also the learning motivation. For the successful introduction of a learning support system some basic conditions should be fulfilled. These conditions are: • large base of installed computers in the workplace, Table 8.1 Roles of management and facilitation team in readiness check Steps

Corresponding to PAL pillars

Activities

Management

Facilitation team

Readiness check

Policy and strategy

Exercise the ROLE survey before initiating learning activities

Y

N

Vision realization

Policy and strategy

Establish learning vision and mission

Y

N

Strategy formation

Policy and strategy

Specific goals setting

Y

N

Learning facilitation

Facilitation, resources and infrastructure

Facilitation team set-up, setting up knowledge sharing platform (e.g. OLSS)

Y

Y

Performance measurement

Performance management

Set out performance evaluation and reward system

Y

Y

94

• • • •

K. F. Kwong and Y. C. Chau

network security, infrastructure and suitable bandwidth, reliable access to the internet, human acceptance of cyberspace.

Among the mentioned conditions, the most important one is ‘human acceptance of cyberspace’. PAL participants should accept cyberspace as a part of the real world and should equalize events in cyberspace with those in the real world. It is important to keep in mind that e-learning provided by the learning support system is not an absolute solution. E-learning should be integrated into ongoing learning programs and should be viewed as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. This is called blended learning. Therefore, an integrative Organizational Learning Supporting System (OLSS) is called upon to facilitate the PAL implementation.

8.3.1 Design of OLSS The OLSS is a computer-based system that can handle cumulating technical or intellectual knowledge and support multi-direction interactions, discussions and knowledge sharing among PAL members. The OLSS is an integral part in one of the supporting pillars which aims to facilitate the PAL implementation. It is composed of a number of modules, as stated in Fig. 8.2 from the Initiation module and Facilitation module, to the Evaluation module, assisting and facilitating PAL implementation during various phases. The OLSS’s different modules support the needs of different PAL phases. With the help

Fig. 8.2 Multi-level system modelling of the OLSS (Kwong et al. 2011)

8 Stage 0—Preparing a PAL Driven OL

95

of the OLSS, knowledge is expected to be stored, shared and created on a team basis during PAL implementation. Microsoft SharePoint is a Web application platform developed by Microsoft. It is one of the Web content management and document management systems that the OLSS is built onto it. It is a free add-on to Microsoft Windows Server providing a Web portal with commonly needed features. This also includes a collection of Web parts that can be embedded into Web pages to provide SharePoint functionality such as dashboards, document workspaces, lists, alerts, calendaring, contact lists, discussion boards and wikis in a custom Web site. It can also offer a ‘fluent’ ribbon user-interface that should be familiar to users of Microsoft Office. This interface provides a general user interface for manipulating data, page editing ability and the ability to add functionality to sites. This can make the user more willing to use the system as the interface is familiar to the systems they use in their daily work. Different modules in the OLSS support the needs at different PAL phases, for instance, the “Problem Proposals” sub-module in the initiation module, the “Sites” sub-module in the facilitation module and the “Blended Evaluation” sub-module in the evaluation module. The PAL members can make use of the system modules/submodules to finish the tasks during PAL implementation. They can hand in reports, store up documents, share experiment reports with others or even perform the evaluation in the OLSS. PAL itself includes a learning project or topic with the learning contracts as members’ commitment, the project milestone as the PAL schedule and a knowledge base to support or store the knowledge created or shared during the PAL implementation. All these PAL activities are captured by the modules of the OLSS which exist at different phases. The OLSS offers the participant a “living” page that evolves with the progress of the PAL process. The home of each PAL team in this OLSS is its PAL main page which is linked to all other modules of functions of the system.

8.3.2 OLSS Supporting PAL Implementation The OLSS is designed to support the PAL implementation at three main phases, to incorporate the needs of PAL teams. The conceptual model of the OLSS is shown in Fig. 8.3. Initiation Phase (1–2 weeks) Each PAL starts with team building and proceeds with the main PAL thread accompanied by a member log thread. In the INITIATION PHASE, PAL application spaces are provided, where the participants log on to document their PAL project work, problems and intended solutions. Before the commencement of a PAL round, there is a project proposal meeting where teams present their projects to management for approval.

96

K. F. Kwong and Y. C. Chau

Start of PAL Project

Functions: - PAL application

Functions:

Initiation Phase

- PAL facilitation - Scheduling

Publish Meeting Materials

Weekly meeting

Facilitation Phase

Collaborative Online Activities

completed Functions: - PAL evaluation

Evaluation Phase

Completion of PAL Project and Learning Cycle Fig. 8.3 Conceptual process model for OLSS

Fig. 8.4 Schematic diagram of the initiation phase (1–2 weeks)

8 Stage 0—Preparing a PAL Driven OL

97

Figure 8.4 presents the schematic diagram of the activities involved in the initiation phase, which include project application and approval and leader and member recruitment. This phase is carried out in the first two weeks of the PAL implementation. Three sub-modules are used in this phase: • Problem proposals sub-module; • Facilitator sub-module; and • Announcement sub-module. Facilitation Phase (12–14 weeks) The FACILITATION PHASE consists of three functions that are aligned with the milestone/activity sequence of the PAL process. Firstly, milestone spaces are initialized in the team workspaces. Secondly, the OL facilitator can post relevant materials and descriptions there. The project teams can access and use these materials while they work towards their respective PAL project milestones and goals. Thirdly, the system plays host to the intermediate project meetings of each PAL team (with occasional involvement of the facilitators). The system helps to log the project progress, team interactions and reflections. Collateral Online Activities provide platforms for online discussions among participants and for online consultation with the OL facilitator. The online consultation is an integral part of the online discussion sub-module. Practically, after the PAL is approved by the management at the start of each PAL round, the team starts its PAL project and enters into its PAL project and the facilitation phase. This phase usually takes about 12–14 weeks throughout a PAL cycle. Figure 8.5 shows the schematic diagram of the activities involved in the PAL facilitation phase. Five sub-modules are used in this phase: • • • • •

Facilitator sub-module; Announcement sub-module; Calendar sub-module; Discussion sub-module; and Site sub-module.

Evaluation Phase (10 weeks) The activities in the EVALUATION PHASE include self, peer and facilitator evaluation. It also supports feedback collection, in the form of questionnaire (structured, quantitative feedback) and reflection sheets (unstructured, qualitative feedback). Regular discussions are highly recommended for PAL team members to note their expectations and requirements of the OLSS throughout the PAL process. During the evaluation phase, other than the five sub-modules used in the facilitation phase, one more sub-module is also used—Survey sub-module. This phase usually takes up about 10 weeks of the PAL implementation. Figure 8.6 is a schematic diagram of the activities involved in the evaluation phase.

98

Fig. 8.5 Schematic diagram of the facilitation phase (12–14 weeks)

Fig. 8.6 Schematic diagram of the evaluation phase (~10 weeks)

K. F. Kwong and Y. C. Chau

8 Stage 0—Preparing a PAL Driven OL Table 8.2 Sub-modules involved in different PAL phases

99

Sub-modules to be used

PAL phases

Problem proposals sub-module

Initiation phase

Facilitator sub-module

Initiation phase, facilitation phase, evaluation phase

Announcement sub-module

Initiation phase, facilitation phase, evaluation phase

Calendar sub-module

Facilitation phase, evaluation phase

Discussion sub-module

Facilitation phase, evaluation phase

Site sub-module

Facilitation phase, evaluation phase

Survey sub-module

Evaluation phase

Use of OLSS Before starting each PAL round, the PAL facilitator or facilitation team will help to grant access to the OLSS for the learning participants, all the activities can be carried out through the system. Table 8.2 shows how the sub-modules in the OLSS support PAL at different stages. A checklist is also presented in Appendix E to ease the system usage. 1. Start of a PAL project (Initiation Phase): a. Each PAL team needs to make a proposal for the permission to initiate a PAL team. The proposal includes: i. the background of the project, ii. the performance and learning goals that are going to be achieved, iii. the selection of the members, iv. the schedule of the project. b. “Problem Proposals” sub-module that was used for the proposal application: the applicants simply upload the proposal to the system and the management is notified by the auto-email delivered by the system. c. The management then decides whether the proposal can be approved. The applicants can receive the approval letter from the system as well, indicating that the proposal has been accepted by the management and the PAL project can then be initiated. 2. “Team Workspaces” sub-module to organize the project progress at the PAL facilitation phase: a. Each PAL team has its own team objectives (Performance and Learning goals), own PAL members, project meetings and knowledge created and shared in the so-called “Document Library”. b. The PAL team can make use of the workspaces to make meeting announcements, store meeting agenda and minutes, and share the project or

100

K. F. Kwong and Y. C. Chau

experimental reports with others. Other team members can easily be notified by the emails they receive through the mailing system. Besides, each PAL team can generate its own workspace style, to fit its purpose and likelihood. c. Each PAL team has the right to modify its own space, in order to develop their personal interest in using the system, to visit the OLSS, to motivate fellow team members to learn and share more through the system. 3. “Discussion forum” in the facilitation phase: a. An online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages. b. Each PAL team has its own discussion page, where they can raise questions in the forum, and the system automatically sends an email to the related parties for the newly posted topics from the forum. Besides, other members or teams can also search for the solutions of similar questions that they may face in their own projects. The discussion forum acts like another knowledge repository to provide possible information or solutions to the PAL participants. 4. During the PAL implementation: a. The facilitator can guide the PAL team throughout the process, PAL facilitators can upload any useful PAL references or guidance to the system. The PAL team can always refer to the guidance or ask for help from the facilitator in the Discussion forum. 5. Evaluation of the PAL progress: a. including self-evaluation, peer evaluation and leader evaluation. b. The PAL members can simply click buttons on the OLSS and follow the instructions to complete the evaluations. The data are stored in the OLSS database for further analysis and elaboration, while the OLSS can automatically generate basic summary for the responses, to give preliminary descriptions on the result.

References Kwong KF, Chau YC, Chuah KB, Cao CC, Law KMY (2011) Web engineering in project action learning. In: 1st International Conference in Exploring Leadership and Learning Theories in Asia (ELLTA’11). Penang, Malaysia Preskill H, Torres RT (1999) Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline. Double day, New York.

8 Stage 0—Preparing a PAL Driven OL

101

Dr. K. F. Kwong received the undergraduate degree in Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management and Ph.D. degree from City University of Hong Kong. His main research areas are organizational learning, knowledge management system, and quality management system. He is currently working in a pharmaceutical company in charge of the engineering section. He is also supporting a consultancy firm providing consultancy service on quality management system.

Dr. Y. C. Chau graduated from Hong Kong Polytechnic University Mechanical Engineering, then received his M.B.A. degree from the University of South Australia, Australia and Ph.D. degree from System Engineering and Engineering Management Department, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, PRC. Dr. Chau is currently working in a consultancy firm providing consultancy services. He has sound experience in managing high technology operations. He is also an Adjunct Professor and Industrial Adviser at the City University of Hong Kong. His research interests cover the Organizational Learning and Learning Organization development, Industry 4.0 implementation and ISO 29990 standard. Dr. Chau is a member of Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE), Senior member of Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE), USA; Member of Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), UK; Member of Institution of Mechanical Engineering (IMechE), UK; Chartered Engineer (CEng) UK EC and a certified First-Class Corporate Trainer in China.

Chapter 9

Stage 1—Starting the PAL C. K. Cheung

9.1 Establishing a PAL Committee To kick start, a PAL committee is established to manage all the PAL activities of the organization. The PAL committee is set to coordinate company resources to support and facilitate the PAL activities with reference to the strategic direction of the top management. The members of the committee are appointed by management, with the specific roles as following: • • • •

Coordinating project initiation and justification process Managing the facilitation team Maintaining supporting resources to PAL groups Coordinating project performance review and reward process.

9.2 Proposing PAL Projects PAL is generally started with a project. These projects should be claimed beneficial to both individual learners and the organization. PAL projects can be employed to address a wide variety of issues which include, but not limited to, the following: • • • •

Productivity improvement Operation and information flow improvement Business performance improvement Special projects to meet organization or customer needs.

Projects are recommended to be in scale between three to five months which has been proven effective for project management and evaluation. C. K. Cheung (B) Acrathon Precision Technologies, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_9

103

104

C. K. Cheung

9.3 Types of PAL Sets Though there are various approaches for project initiation, here, PAL projects are initiated by two methods: • initiated by the organization or • proposed by individual employee or team. For the provision of supporting resources, PAL project proposals need to go through the project review and approval process. This ensures each PAL project can be recognized by the management of the organization and facilitated by necessary resources. The flow of the PAL project initiation is shown in the following diagram (Fig. 9.1).

Fig. 9.1 Project initiation process

9 Stage 1—Starting the PAL

105

1. Project proposals are submitted to the company’s PAL committee. These projects are either solving problems or achieving specific objectives. 2. The PAL committee secretary collects the proposals and delivers to members of PAL committee for review. 3. If the project is justified as a good project, it will be approved and registered in the PAL project database.

9.3.1 Type 1—Organization Initiated PAL Projects PAL projects can be initiated by the management who wishes to use PAL as a mean for enabling development. There are simply two main types: for specific needs (necessity driven) and for regular operational implementation (wave approach).

9.3.1.1

Type 1A: Necessity Driven-Specific Need

When there’s a specific need, management can initiate project to achieve the objectives of specific need. This is not regular business or operation activities, but specific needs which are important to the organization. These needs can be of different types, as the following, but not limited to: • • • •

technical problem improvement project change process cost saving project.

In this case, related department manager may propose the project with clearly stated goals and submit to the PAL committee for review and approval.

9.3.1.2

Type 1B: Regular Implementation (Wave Approach)

In a PAL-oriented organization, management intentionally promotes the PAL activities in target departments or activities. Example: A PAL project aiming for efficiency, process and quality improvements can be proposed by Production, Engineering and Quality departments. Several improvement projects are initiated. In this case, PAL groups are formed to work on the projects. After some projects are justified and approved, they can be launched together in the same period. A kick-off meeting organized by the PAL committee can be used to introduce related activities of the PAL projects and groups. It also shows the

106

C. K. Cheung

Fig. 9.2 The PAL project life cycle

Fig. 9.3 Wave-like approach of PAL implementation

support of management. These PAL projects start together until their completion. Each project goes through the steps of its life cycle (Fig. 9.2): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Propose project, Justify & Approve, Launch project, Report result, Evaluate performance.

After one round of implementation is finished, another round can be started and so on. In this way, PAL projects are launched by a wave-like approach (Fig. 9.3). Each wave represents the life cycles of PAL. Rounds of PAL can be implemented through this approach which supports the continuous improvement strategy of an organization.

9.3.2 Type 2—Self-initiated PAL Projects Besides being initiated by management, projects can also be initiated by employees. For example, when an employee finds a need to create a project to improve the current work process, a project proposal is submitted for reviews. When the proposal is approved, it is recognized as an official PAL project and is entitled to have the supporting resources.

9 Stage 1—Starting the PAL

107

9.4 Project Identification PAL projects are often driven by improvement needs, in which specific outcomes are expected. There are various ways to identify the goals or idea generation in the process of PAL project creation. There are generally two approaches:

9.4.1 Employee Voice A survey can be conducted in the department or groups which are targeted for PAL implementation. In the survey, ideas of existing problems, improvement requests and learning requirement to support better works can be collected. Two key questions are addressed: 1. What problems or improvement opportunities are possible in your existing work? 2. What do you want to learn in order to support your work? The responses are collected and reviewed by the PAL committee and related department heads together. Suitable projects can be selected for the establishment of PAL groups.

9.4.2 Commitment in Continuous Improvement Besides opinions from employees, commitment in continuous improvement is another key driver to learning, which leads to real organizational change. Strategy needs to be developed to ensure learning outcome is captured and shared. The PAL framework provides learning strategy to facilitate the continuous improvement. The continuous improvement strategy can be long term targets relating to efficiency and capability improvements in business and operation. The improvement strategies and actions can be carried out on project basis, and this kind of projects can also be considered as PAL projects.

9.5 Project Justification PAL projects can be applied through a “PAL Project application form” Appendix VI- PAL APPLICATION FORMS. The content of the application depends on the requirement from management for review and approval. Basically, the background and goals of the PAL project are described in the form and submitted to the PAL committee. The PAL committee takes the role to review,

108

C. K. Cheung

justify and approve PAL projects, with reference to the impact and significance of the project to the company. The PAL committee will: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Review the submitted applications and, Interview the PAL project proposers for project detail finding, Justify and approve applications according to the justification criteria, and Inform the top management regarding the successful proposals.

9.5.1 Justification Criteria Management set up the justification criteria which may include (but not limited to) following considerations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Is the project to solve an existing work problem of the employees? Does the project goal match with company development strategy well? Is the project goal aligned with the company performance goal? What are the learning activities in the project? Will the project be completed within the acceptable period of time? Are there enough supporting resources for the project? What are the potential benefits to the company?

9.6 Forming PAL Group The PAL group is formed by the individuals who are experiencing and working on the problem to be solved. A PAL group needs a leader, there are generally two scenarios in the PAL forming: 1. When a PAL project is proposed, there may be already a proposer or a leader. This is particularly common if the PAL project is initiated by employee. 2. If a team is not formed yet, the related department manager and leader can identify and recruit members who possess appropriate knowledge, skill, attitude and expertise for the PAL project and learning.

9.7 Identifying Facilitator and Supporting Resources Once PAL project is approved, the facilitation and corresponding necessary supporting resources, such as communication and sharing platform, need to be identified.

9 Stage 1—Starting the PAL

109

9.7.1 Identifying a Facilitator for a PAL Group Upon the approval of a PAL project, the PAL committee informs the LOFT to review the application. The LOFT will then identify a facilitator to involve. This facilitator should have the required knowledge to help the PAL group go through the action learning process. The facilitator will review the project objectives with the PAL team. Training resources will then be identified and allocated to facilitate the learning process. Detail PAL facilitation will be described in Chap. 10.

9.7.2 Identifying Supporting Resources for a PAL Group Supporting resources are required for the PAL process. These include the supports to both learning goals and performance goals of the PAL project. Examples of supporting resources include (but not limited to) the following: • Basic knowledge on PAL approach • Platform for communication and knowledge sharing (Sect. 8.3) • Specific technical capabilities related to the project goals. The facilitator needs to review the PAL project background and discuss with the members of the PAL group. Some supporting resources such as basic learning and dialogue skills training can be identified at the beginning whereas some supporting resources can only be identified after the PAL project is started such as specific technical requirement to achieve specific goal of the project (Fig. 9.4).

Fig. 9.4 Supporting resources at various project phases

110

C. K. Cheung

9.8 Confirming Project Goals and Plan A PAL project generally starts with a problem to be solved or a process to be improved. When the PAL group is formed and specific goals and objectives are identified and defined. There are both performance goals and learning goals to be agreed. The performance goals are related to existing problem or improvement needs, which are of potential benefits to the company. The learning goals depend on the learning needs, at both individual and organizational levels. These learning goals are generally relating to the relevant knowledge of the projects. In a nutshell, starting a PAL involves the following process: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Establishing a PAL committee Proposing PAL projects Project justification Forming PAL group Identifying facilitator and supporting resources Confirming project goals and plan.

Dr. C. K. Cheung received his Engineering Doctorate (EngD) in the Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management at the City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, PRC. His research focuses on Organizational Learning in shop floor level by using a Project-based Action Learning (PAL) strategy. He has been working in global high technology companies and various fields including quality, manufacturing, operation and project management. He is also supporting a consultancy firm providing quality related training to automotive industry.

Chapter 10

Stage 2—Facilitating and Evaluating PAL Chris R. Cao and Kris M. Y. Law

Abstract During the PAL process, PAL Facilitation Team (LOFT) is responsible for the facilitation and evaluation of the PAL. LOFT should circularly: monitor PAL implementation status, identify relevant problems/barriers, and introduce proper facilitation interventions to redress the situation. The specific roles of facilitators, facilitation interventions and a PAL evaluation instrument will be introduced in this chapter.

10.1 Roles of LO Facilitation Team/Facilitator During the PAL process, PAL Facilitation Team (LOFT) is responsible for the facilitation and evaluation of the PAL. LOFT should circularly: • monitor PAL implementation status, • identify relevant problems/barriers, and • introduce proper facilitation interventions to redress the situation. Specifically, facilitators have the roles as: 1. Learning motivation reinforcer 2. Team learning effecter.

10.1.1 Learning Motivation Reinforcer In the first place, PAL facilitators need to shoulder the role of learning motivation reinforcer with the purpose of managing the dynamic of the group and maintaining C. R. Cao (B) Crest View Technology Investment Ltd, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] K. M. Y. Law School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_10

111

112

C. R. Cao and K. M. Y. Law

it in positive forms (Esther 2005). They need to be actively communicating with PAL teams, sustaining their momentum, and coaching them how to learn, record and spread their learned knowledge throughout the PAL process. There are a series of “interventions”.

10.1.1.1

Communicate Management Support and Expectations

This intervention involves the behaviour of facilitators to convey PAL participants the messages from management about the company’s situation and the relevant OL strategy, including its purposes, activity plans and past achievements. Management supports and expectations for PAL implementation must be clearly communicated and reinforced to PAL participants to construct their mental contract with PAL.

10.1.1.2

Communicate Principles and Values of PAL Implementation

Sufficient training programs regarding the principles of PAL process, action learning, and team learning must be offered to participants. Facilitators should: 1. let PAL participants comprehend the values and potential benefits of PAL, 2. gradually internalize positive attitudes toward PAL participation, and 3. respond to PAL participants’ doubts and worries by consulting with them individually through dialogue to help PAL participants to identify and align their intrinsic needs and desires, such as needs for achievement and recognition, and for growth and development, with the performance and learning goals of their respective PAL projects.

10.1.1.3

Act as Role Models

PAL team leaders and facilitators should be actively involved in PAL implementation by coaching and encouraging PAL members to learn and develop themselves throughout the PAL process. Moreover, facilitators should keep frequent contact with PAL team leaders and members to raise their attention on and conviction in the PAL projects, thereby to maintain their momentum. It is all about being there with them to explore and resolve problems rather than letting them feel that they are supervised or monitored. Forms of communications: • face-to-face conversation, • phone calls or emails. while the content may cover project progress, difficulties encountered, helps needed, encouragements, helpful guidance and suggestions, latest developments, and so on.

10 Stage 2—Facilitating and Evaluating PAL

10.1.1.4

113

Relate PAL Participation to Job Demands

Facilitators should help potential PAL participants to identify their needs or problems at work and encourage them to form PAL teams to resolve the identified issues. When a PAL project can help its members to overcome work-related challenges and improve their performance, very likely, they will perceive its participation as useful and be actively involved.

10.1.1.5

Develop “SMART” Learning Goals for PAL Members

Facilitators should ensure PAL members’ learning goals are “SMART” enough. Here “SMART”, the well-known recipe for effective action-planning stands for: • • • • •

specific learning objectives, measurable check points, achievable targets, relevant to job demands, and achievable in a specific time frame.

Facilitators should ask participants simple yet probing questions that help to decompose their learning goals into specific milestone objectives that are clear and measurable, and to translate these measurable objectives into evaluation rubrics. Once agreed, the rubrics will be used by PAL members as well as their leaders to assess their efforts and contributions. Facilitators also help the team to develop their action plans in line with the “SMART” goals.

10.1.1.6

Encourage PAL Participants with Material Rewards

In general, staff at operational level are more sensitive to immediate material rewards. To provide contingent material rewards is a quick-acting stimulus to spur many staff’s involvement in PAL projects. PAL facilitators should help to publicize the “attraction” of such rewards to the right audience.

10.1.2 Team Learning Effecter with In-Depth Dialogue In-depth dialogue is the creation of common meaning through an interactive process of active listening, respectful exploring of assumptions and differences, and building a context for thinking together (Isaacs 1999). Facilitators can tap into such communication skills to intervene deadlocks in PAL teams, create an atmosphere of rationally exploring those sensitive, focal issues, and gradually instil the mindset of team indepth dialogue. Such skills will enable PAL team members to acquire the built-in

114

C. R. Cao and K. M. Y. Law

capability to look for more constructive solutions to deal with conflicts/problems in their respective PAL projects. To enable in-depth dialogue in a PAL team, a facilitator can apply the ‘dialogue interventions’ (Fig. 10.1): 1. Firstly, the facilitator should shape the communication style of the team by establishing the ground rules for in-depth dialogue at the beginning of every PAL meeting (Table 10.1). 2. Secondly, the facilitator should be vigilant about the subtle changes of PAL members’ tones, words, emotions and behaviours during team discussion. Feelings of safety and trust are crucial for participants, especially for lower rank staff, to express freely their views and ideas. To achieve this, the facilitator must enable the one with the highest rank in the team to show genuine respect to different views. 3. Thirdly, the facilitator should be actively involved, detect ambiguities and deadlocks in the conversation, ask clarifying or probing questions as needed, describe the situation of the dialogue, and summarize the key points that emerge from previous conversations, with the purpose of driving things toward mutual agreement. 4. Fourthly, positive feedback, like encouragement, expression of understanding, smiles, eye contact, elaborating inquiries, etc., should be given to those pracEnabling In-depth Dialogue in PAL Teams When seeing the need for in-depth dialogue (e.g. to resolve conflicts, reduce defense), a fa cilitator should conduct training or dialogue sessions to impart the conce pt and skills of in-depth dialogue to the people involved.

Trigger & Objective

Dialogic Interventions

To enable an in-depth dialogue, the facilitator needs to shape the communication style in the team at the very beginning.

Communicate dialogic ground rules to team members; carefully explain the rules to make them understand; get team members’ agreement and contract to practice the rules in the subsequent team dialogue.

Detect and manage the tensions (e.g. aggressive or defensive tones, words, behaviors, polarization etc) generated by failures to achieve agreements or feelings of insecurity.

Moderate the tensions or conflicts; ask participants to suspend or tone down their outbursts and identify alternatives open to them; show genuine respect to different views and interests; stress the common grounds and objectives of the team.

Detect ambiguities and deadlocks in the in-depth dialogue; drive things toward mutual agreement.

Join in the in-depth dialogue and practice dialogic behaviors; ask probing and clarifying questions as needed; restate the situation of the in-depth dialogue; summarize the key points that emerged from previous conversation; act as role models for the other members.

Encourage team members to join in the in-depth dialogue.

Give positive feedbacks to those actively involved in the dialogue (e.g. exposure of one’s innermost views, respectful exploration of others’ assumptions, reflection about one’s own thoughts and behaviors).

Encourage team members to resolve their own defensive routines in the indepth dialogue.

Use the tools of action science, i.e. the left-hand column and the ladder of inference, to explain the mechanism of self-defensive routines; ask them to be careful about their own defensive routines, as they are over protective and anti-learning.

Fig. 10.1 Enabling in-depth dialogue in PAL teams

Build the Knowledge Base for In-depth Dialogue

Manage Team Dynamics to achieve In-depth Dialogue

In-depth Dialogue in PAL Teams

10 Stage 2—Facilitating and Evaluating PAL

115

Table 10.1 Ground rules for PAL meetings Ground rules for pal meetings • Treat each other as comrades regardless of rank • • • • • • • • • •

Listen to the whole story and participate within the whole, not pieces Suspend reaction and judgment until you understand Inquire if you don’t understand Speak out your views, inference and assumptions Question your own views, inferences and assumptions based on the comments from others Focus on the matter at issue, take away the human dimension Stick to using objective criteria Strive to look for win-win solutions Don’t argue with each other Be honest, open and respectful

tising dialogue skills, such as respectful exploration of others’ assumptions and inferences, balancing advocacy with inquiry, making one’s own thinking visible, recalling and pondering one’s past behaviours, or reflecting on one’s thoughts and mistakes. 5. Last but not least, the facilitator should always encourage team members to detect, admit and try to overcome their own defensive routines in group discussion, especially when they are over protective and anti-learning.

10.2 Team Reflection This dialogue intervention helps PAL members to understand the notion, significance and reflection allows them to recap, share and internalize what they have learned during their PAL projects. A four-levels reflection model is adopted for PAL reflection (Table 10.2). For each level of reflection in the model, corresponding PAL-related themes are put forward. The themes for reflection include progress review (descriptions of PAL objectives and project progress), problem investigation (analysis and inquiries of the problem), problem resolution (development of solutions), and project debriefing (generalization and extrapolation of gains).

10.2.1 Reflection Process in PAL This intervention enables PAL participants to evaluate their project progress, and review their learning and capabilities in a structured way, by asking them a series of probing and reflective questions (Heron 1999). The questions are designed by facilitators or team leaders with the intention of making PAL participants achieve the reflection outcomes of each level mentioned above. PAL teams are encouraged

116

C. R. Cao and K. M. Y. Law

Table 10.2 PAL reflection framework Reflection level

Relevant PAL themes

Reflection outcomes by asking questions

Level one

Progress review

• Recall their PAL topic • Recall their project performance and learning goals • Describe their project status quo and the problems • Describe their current methodology and action plan • Describe their project progress

Level two

Problem investigation

• Interpret the problem • Explain the methodology used for problem analysis • Reflect on possible individual mistakes • Analyse the problem from individuals’ perspective • Interpret and integrate different views, and rethink the causes of the problem systematically

Level three

Problem resolution

• Propose and explain possible solutions • Identify the relevant requirements for competence and resources • Select the most viable solution • Construct the action plan

Level four

Project debriefing

• Evaluate their project progress or the contributions to both department and organization with concrete evidence • Evaluate both individual and team learning progress or achievements with concrete evidence • Fine-tune PAL goals if needed • Highlight needs for improvement and future application

to explore the answers to these questions through the balanced use of both open discussion and in-depth dialogue which is facilitated by the facilitator. The whole reflection process is illustrated by Fig. 10.2.

10.3 PAL Evaluation Based on the measurement factors as stated in (Sect. 4.4.3.1) and (Sect. 6.3.3), a F/W/C focused PAL performance model is used to evaluate performance of PAL teams. A detailed PAL evaluation instrument (Likert scale) has been attached in APPENDIX VII-F/W/C PAL Evaluation Instrument for reference. To help steer participants through the PAL process properly, this evaluation instrument should be periodically adopted to monitor their learning status (Fig. 10.3). For

10 Stage 2—Facilitating and Evaluating PAL

117

PAL Reflection Flow Chart Conducted by facilitator or team leader

Base on PAL reflection framework and previous team reflection record to determine the content and depth of this reflection

Design a series of open inquiries, according to the determined content and depth of this team reflection

Clarify the topic and purpose of team reflection at the beginning of the meeting

PAL Meeting

Sequentially ask the questions; leave space and time for them to think; encourage them to voice own opinions and inquiry with each other; take reflection notes for further dialogue

Review and summarize the answers to the questions at the end of the meeting; put them into meeting minutes

Disseminate the minutes to team members for future reference after the meeting; use it as the base for next team reflection

Fig. 10.2 PAL reflection flow chart

each PAL team, feedbacks from its members should be collected, discussed, analysed and fused into action plans that aim to rectify deficiency in the current learning states.

118

C. R. Cao and K. M. Y. Law

PAL teams gain fresh and concrete experience by engaging in project and learning related activities

PAL members use the F/W/C instrument individually to generate feedbacks on their own states of learning

PAL team leaders/facilitators collect and analyze the feedbacks to identify potential barriers to genuine learning

PAL team leaders/facilitators hold team meetings to explore sufficiently the identified barriers (e.g. unclear learning objectives, poor motivation, poor communication) by using collective dialogic inquiries

Rested on sufficient exploration and negotiation, the PAL teams form future action plans to overcome the barriers

Fig. 10.3 The process of using the F/W/C based OL evaluation instrument

References Esther C (2005) Facilitation made easy: practical tips to improve meetings and workshops. London and Sterling Heron J (1999) Complete facilitator’s handbook. Kogan Page Limited Isaacs W (1999) Dialogue and the art of thinking together. DOUBLEDAY a division of Random House, Inc.

10 Stage 2—Facilitating and Evaluating PAL

119

Dr. Chris R. Cao received his B.Sc in Computer Science & Technology in 2005 from Nanjing University. He obtained his M.Sc and Ph.D. in Engineering Management from City University of Hong Kong. His research interests include organizational learning, project management, corporate governance, staff training and development, etc. He currently serves as the director of a technology investment group, giving support to business development and internal control of the corporation.

Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the Associate Professor in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland. Dr. Law obtained her Ph.D. in Organization Learning and M.Phil. in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong. She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Development (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations. Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed).

Chapter 11

Stage 3—Closing PAL and PAL Knowledge Kris M. Y. Law and Shuang Geng

Abstract In the final stage of the PAL life cycle, performance outcomes are reviewed to make sure the predefined goals are achieved. The Post-PAL review is therefore very important as it serves as a ‘gauging’ process. This chapter presents the key tasks involved in the Post-PAL review process. These tasks include the acceptance of PAL outcomes, the team reflection and the PAL knowledge reflection. The review processes of PAL knowledge, which involves acquisition of new knowledge and the reuse of knowledge, are also presented in this chapter.

11.1 Closing the PAL 11.1.1 Checking with the Goals With the aim to serve as an approach to realize this alignment and improve both individual job competency and organization’s competitive ability, PAL goals are of dual-purposes: for both learning and project performance. In the final stage of the PAL life cycle, performance outcomes are reviewed with reference to the predefined goals, that are set from the very beginning. The PostPAL review is therefore very important in the closing stage. In the Post-PAL review consists of several Tasks (Table 11.1).

K. M. Y. Law School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] S. Geng (B) College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_11

121

122

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

Table 11.1 Post PAL review tasks Who

What to do in the review?

Acceptance of PAL outcomes

1. Senior management 2. PAL leader 3. PAL team

• Review on the PAL goals • Acceptance on PAL outcomes

Team reflection

1. PAL leader (project leader) 2. PAL team 3. Facilitation team/facilitator

• Lessons learned • Post PAL reflection • PAL process improvement

PAL knowledge reflection

1. Facilitators 2. PAL members

• Individual learning reflection • Sharing of new insights

11.1.2 Post-PAL Reflection Post-PAL Reflection is critical in the Closing process and as well in the entire PAL life cycle. The reflection remembrances the PAL life, in which the PAL team has to revisit and recite the goals set and the process gone through to achieve the performance outcome. One or more session for reflection is expected, convened by the OL facilitator or facilitation team. It is to be held among PAL team members (including PAL leader), facilitated by the OL Facilitator and reflections from each member are expected with regards to: 1. What (ACTION)—the process of learning, which is aligned with project? 2. HOW well (PERFORM) with reference to the goals and expectations? 3. What—(RELECT)—experience and insights?

11.1.3 Lesson Learned From the Reflection sessions, key points shared and reflected consist of not only personal feelings or experiences, but also some newly acquired or created knowledge or lesson learned from the PAL process which are valuable to be for the company. Lesson learned are kept and stored as explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge such as skills, practices, procedures are learnt in the project process and stored in the project files.

11 Stage 3—Closing PAL and PAL Knowledge

123

11.2 PAL Knowledge 11.2.1 New Knowledge Acquired Through PAL Process With the digitalization organization business processes, learners in the workplace are using online resources more frequently to acquire knowledge. Large amounts of online learning resource are available today provided by the educational service companies. Organizational learning support system (OLSS) provides services such as information storage, exchange, and updating for PAL implementation (Fig. 11.1). The information accumulated through different stages of PAL implementation create a source of new knowledge based on the project experience. Explicit knowledge such as skills, practices, procedures are learnt in the project process and stored in the project files. The project steps such as problem elaboration, communications,

Fig. 11.1 OLSS functional modules and PAL stages

124

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

problem solving, reflection on the results enable the members to deepen their understanding and gain experience in the project knowledge domain. Despite that the creation of implicit knowledge is not easy to observe, track and store, the improvement of project members competency and job satisfaction is closely linked with their knowledge growth. The new knowledge or skills that can be obtained through PAL processes are listed in Table 11.2. This classification can be updated according to PAL implementation setting in organizations.

11.2.2 Reuse of PAL Knowledge Reuse of the project knowledge relies on learner awareness of its importance, organizational supporting policies, and information techniques. Organization policy can shape organizational value thus influence individual attitude toward knowledge learning. The adoption of PAL based OL raises the learning awareness among project members. Through PAL, the learning of project members is oriented by problem solving need and organizational development need. Technologies supporting knowledge reuse include information retrieval, question answering, recommender system, data visualization, etc. Recently, web-based learning systems play a more proactive role in the online learning process. For example, learning recommender system can analyse the learner context and interest, and suggest learning content or learning path that the user may like. Web-based learning system helps to reduce the cost of face-to-face training for new members. Table 11.3 listed some widely used tools for knowledge storage in PAL process. It also needs to note that learning online is self-directed and self-monitored. By focusing on the interactions between the user and web-based learning system, four stages are identified in the PAL lifecycle: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Self-evaluation, Specify learning intention, Select learning activities, Learning action.

The continuous learning is supported by the repetition of these four stages which forms a learning spiral. The effectiveness of each learning stage determines the learning outcome and learners’ behavioural change.

11 Stage 3—Closing PAL and PAL Knowledge

125

Table 11.2 New knowledge created in PAL process PAL implementation

Initiation

Facilitation

Evaluation

Mainly explicit knowledge

Mainly tacit knowledge

New knowledge samples

✓

Problem definition, feasibility study, cost benefit analysis

Step 1

Project proposal and justification

✓

Step 2

Select PAL members and form PAL teams

✓

Resource requirement, HR plan/develop the project charter

Step 3

Brief the PAL team and make commitments

✓

Communication plan

Step 4

Set goals and develop plans

✓

Scope and objectives

Step 5

Facilitate learning, knowledge sharing and application

Step 6

Facilitate reflection

Step 7

Evaluate and review

Step 8

Conclude and set Future directions

✓

✓

✓

Project execution management, progress report and analysis, stakeholder communication, data warehousing

✓

Team member learning report

✓

Change control, quality control, performance analysis, risk control

✓

Project records and reports, post project analysis, resource reallocation, contract

126

K. M. Y. Law and S. Geng

Table 11.3 New knowledge storage in PAL process PAL implementation Initiation

Facilitation

Evaluation

New knowledge storage tools

Step 1

Project proposal and justification

Mind mapping tools, email

Step 2

Select PAL members and form PAL teams

Collaborative writing tools

Step 3

Brief the PAL team and make commitments

Email, visualization tools

Step 4

Set goals and develop plans

Email, Collaborative writing tools

Step 5

Facilitate learning, knowledge sharing and application

Online discussion forum, collaborative writing tools, database management systems, collaboration tools, decision support system

Step 6

Facilitate reflection

E-learning tools, online discussion forum, data and text mining tools, simulations

Step 7

Evaluate and review

Data and text mining tools, decision support system, data warehousing

Step 8

Conclude and set Future directions

Data warehousing, Reporting tools, visualization tools

Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the Associate Professor in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland. Dr. Law obtained her Ph.D. in Organization Learning and M.Phil. in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong. She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Development (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations. Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed).

11 Stage 3—Closing PAL and PAL Knowledge

127

Dr. Shuang Geng obtained her B.S. degree in engineering (in 2013) and Ph.D. degree (in 2017) from the College of Science and Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, P.R. China. She is currently Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Management Science Department, College of Management, and Greater Bay Area International Institute for Innovation in Shen Zhen University. Her research interests include Project and Team Management, Recommender Systems, Learning Technologies, Heuristic Optimization Algorithms. Her papers appear in Computers & Education, Project Management Journal, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, etc.

Chapter 12

Postscripts: 16-Years Journey of PAL, What Is Next? Kris M. Y. Law

Abstract The book is not solely a documentation of the PAL framework and relevant tactics, but also a presentation of a 16-year longitudinal examination of our successful OL story, through the adoption of the PAL driven framework and the evolutionary road of the associated parts. This summarizes the long-range road of OL adoption, with PAL proven to be a sustainable OL vehicle. The successful implementation experience offers a good reference for organizations that are keen on using OL as a driver for excellence, showing its evolution and effectiveness over an extended time period.

12.1 Birth of PAL as OL Vehicle Based on project-based learning and action learning, the Project-based Action Learning (PAL) framework was first designed and developed, working as a practical OL leaning tool to bring the OL concept into practice and help a specific company to maintain its competitiveness. PAL adopts the concepts of team learning and action learning for project-based learning teams. Differing from action learning, the PAL framework is implemented in a real working scenario and solves the problems in project operations. Each of the PAL projects lasts for 3–4 months. Project goals as well as team and individual learning objectives which are set first are achieved through the learning.

12.2 Our Longitudinal Case Study Many scholars in the East started to notice the importance of learning ability in an organization in the last two decades. However, there has been a lack of studies undertaken on learning organizations implementations. Though cases about OL K. M. Y. Law (B) School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8_12

129

130

K. M. Y. Law

implementation in the workplace were studied, however, most of them were not in-depth (Law and Chuah 2019). Our case company is a renowned multi-national high-tech manufacturer with global operations. It is one of the world’s leading independent manufacturers, producing magnetic recording heads for hard disk drives. In order to maintain the capability of the company and to continue to be competitive in the field, it was a top management decision in 2000 to import the LO and OL concepts. However, the reaction and acceptance were not very satisfactory after the initial introduction by the top management. a project-team action learning (PAL) framework was specifically developed and launched in 2002, acting as the driver of OL in the case company (Law and Chuah 2015). The PAL implementation started in early 2004, with project performance goals and first importing the individual learning goals. After two months of accomplishing a pilot run, the first round of the PAL project was carried out between April and August 2004. Due to the large turnover of the team members, the first round of PAL was not completed. However, this round of PAL contributed to the further refinement of the PAL framework and the design of the performance management system. The top management made a highly visible push in PAL implementation in the second round which proved out to be successful. In the second round, the performance measurement system was found to be effective and the demand for facilitation was raised. In round 3, a formal LO Facilitating Team (LOFT) was set up to support the PAL implementation, and a LO website was designed within the company’s intranet system. By the fourth round, it was noted that the concept of LO and OL has been widely accepted and PAL was also well perceived as a company learning tool (Chuah and Law 2006; Law et al. 2007). Figure 12.1 summarizes the progress of the PAL implementation in the early stages (Law and Chuah 2019). After the first continuous improvement rounds of PAL implementation, many PAL projects have been conducted in the case company to drive performance excellence (Figs. 12.2 and 12.3). From 2004 to 2017, there were totally 25 rounds of PAL implementation with 93 teams in the case company (Law and Chuah 2015).

Fig. 12.1 The early stage of PAL development and implementation (i.e. 2002–2005) (from Law and Chuah 2019)

12 Postscripts: 16-Years Journey of PAL, What Is Next?

131

Fig. 12.2 PAL-driven OL journey in the case company from 2000 to 2010

Fig. 12.3 PAL-driven OL journey in the case company between 2011 and 2017

12.3 The Evolution of the Four Supporting Pillars The primary prototypes of the four pillars, based on the PAL framework, appeared in the early stage of the PAL implementation (2004–2005). Through the rounds of PAL implementation, the four pillars have evolved over time. They were developed at different times and pace throughout the PAL journey, with the aim of complementing each other so as to support the PAL in a seamless manner. Figure 12.4 summarizes the pathways of all these four pillars. The four pillars form a very robust infrastructure supporting PAL in driving OL within the company. Each is indispensable. From the ‘policy and strategy’ to ‘resources and infrastructure, to ‘performance management’ and ‘facilitation’, each pillar is evolved according the needs of the others.

132

K. M. Y. Law

Fig. 12.4 Overview of the four pillars progress in the PAL journey (2000–2017)

12.4 What’s Next? Based on the accumulated experience of the authors’ OL endeavour, this book presents a 16-year longitudinal examination of a successful OL story, through the adoption of the PAL driven framework and the evolutionary road of the associated parts. This summarizes the long-range road of OL adoption, with PAL proven to be a sustainable OL vehicle. The successful implementation experience offers a good reference for organizations that are keen on using OL as a driver for excellence, showing its evolution and effectiveness over an extended time period.

12.5 Teaching OL and PAL OL is a multidisciplinary subject matter, grounded on multiple bodies of knowledge. It can be considered as a concept, an approach, a management strategy or a tool for organizational excellence. Developing a course teaching organizational learning is a challenge for course designers, as ‘learning’ OL requires not only the fundamentals in the OL context, but also the approaches and issues for practical implementation. Specifically, leadership, the learning process, models, tools, and best practices for managing and leading in learning organizations, that may be applied in different contexts. In this book, though it is not a step-by-step manual for implementing OL, we are trying to present a conceptualization of OL and its relevant bodies of knowledge. Besides, the four pillars developed are the very practical tools and approaches for effective implementation of OL, while the PAL serves as the practical framework for any project-based and action learning activities.

12 Postscripts: 16-Years Journey of PAL, What Is Next?

133

Sample course outline for a 11-week course can be:

Weeks

Topic

Materials

1–2

Overview of organizational learning and learning organizations, the concepts, models and relevant notions

Chapters 1 and 2

3–4

Factors affecting organizational learning and how organizational learning is described and visualized

Chapters 3 and 4

5–6

Implementation approaches of OL and the PAL framework

Chapters 5 and 6

7

Knowledge in OL and the knowledge process

Chapter 7

8–11

Practices of management and driving OL in an organization

Chapters 8–11

References Chuah KB, Law KMY (2006) PAL in action: a company’s OL experience. Team Perform Manage Int J 12(1/2):55–60 Law KMY, Chuah KB (2015) PAL driven organizational learning: theory and practices, a light on learning journey of organizations. Springer, Berlin Law KMY, Chuah KB (2019) The story of project-based action learning (PAL): a 15-year organizational learning journey of a high-tech firm in China. Int J Organ Anal 27:3 (in print) Law KMY, Chuah KB, Chau YC, Kwong KF (2007) PAL framework implementation in an LO and OL project. In: Proceedings of the fifth international symposium on management of technology, Hangzhou, China

Dr. Kris M. Y. Law is currently the Associate Professor in Engineering Management and Education, in the School of Engineering, Deakin University, Australia. She also holds a Docentship (adjunct professorship) in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu University in Finland. Dr. Law obtained her Ph.D. in Organization Learning and M.Phil. in Machining Processes as well a first degree in Industrial Engineering, at the City University of Hong Kong. She undertook a post-doctoral research scholarship in the National Taiwan University on a regional high-tech industry study and took up a visiting researcher position at the Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering, National Taiwan University (2009–2011). Her expertise lies in Organizational Learning and Development (OLD), Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TIE), Engineering Education, and Smart Industrial Initiatives (SII). She has been invited as a visiting scholar in different countries, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Europe (Finland and Slovenia), and has been active as a professional OL consultant promoting project-based action learning (PAL) in high-tech organizations. Her publications including books, book chapters and journal articles (SCI and SSCI indexed).

Appendix A

Forms of PAL Evaluations

Form 1– Individual Performance by Experimenter/Leader(s) Team ______________ For the Period ____________ Experimenter (Leader/w Facilitator): ______________ Member’s Name:

A-

B-

C-

E-

F-

G-

D-

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8

135

136

Appendix A: Forms of PAL Evaluations

Please circle the scores: Behavioral Observations

Performance

Individual achievement in the project

Achievement-

B

C

D

E

F

G

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

learned

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

knowledge-

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Use of system thinking and analytical system

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

in daily operation

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Application of

Use of problem solving skill in daily operation

Scores (1-5) A

Use of problem analysis skill in daily operation

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Can handle problems with sufficient technical

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

knowledge, and working principles

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Appendix A: Forms of PAL Evaluations 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

sharing

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

commitment-

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Knowledge

Motivation-

Share knowledge with peers

137

Motivated to learn new knowledge

Motivated to generate new ideas

Remarks: 1= behavior is NOT observed 2= seldom observed 3= Behavior is sometimes observed 4= behavior can be seen quite often 5= Behavior s readily observed, and becomes the culture

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

138

Appendix A: Forms of PAL Evaluations

Form 2– Individual Performance by Self Please circle the scores: Behavioral Observations

Scores (1-5) st

nd

1

2

Week 8

Week 15

Date Performance

Individual achievement in the project

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Use of problem solving skill in daily

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

AchievementApplication of learned

operation

knowledge-

Use of system thinking and analytical system in daily operation Use of problem analysis skill in daily operation Can handle problems with sufficient technical knowledge, and working principles

Knowledge

Share knowledge with peers

sharing commitmentMotivation-

Motivated to learn new knowledge

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Motivated to generate new ideas

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Remarks: 1= behavior is NOT observed 2= seldom observed 3= Behavior is sometimes observed 4= behavior can be seen quite often 5= Behavior is readily observed, and becomes the culture

Appendix A: Forms of PAL Evaluations

139

Form 3– Individual Performance by Peers Team _______________ Date _______________ Your name: Peers Name: A-

B-

C-

E-

F-

G-

D-

Please circle the scores for each member: Behavioral Observations

Performance

Individual achievement in the project

Achievement-

B

C

D

E

F

G

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

learned

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

knowledge-

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Use of system thinking and analytical system

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

in daily operation

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Application of

Use of problem-solving skill in daily operation

Scores (1-5) A

140

Appendix A: Forms of PAL Evaluations Use of problem analysis skill in daily operation

Knowledge

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Can handle problems with sufficient technical

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

knowledge, and working principles

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

sharing

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

commitment-

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Motivation-

Share knowledge with peers

Motivated to learn new knowledge

Motivated to generate new ideas

Remarks: 1= behavior is NOT observed 2= seldom observed 3= Behavior is sometimes observed 4= behavior can be seen quite often 5= Behavior s readily observed, and becomes the culture

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Appendix A: Forms of PAL Evaluations

141

Form 4– Team Performance Evaluation Team: ____________________ For the Period: ___________________ Experimenter/ Assessor(s): _____________ Please circle the scores: Behavioral Observations

Scores (1-5) Date

Performance

Individual achievement in the project

Achievement-

Knowledge

Creation of new ideas

Creation-

Knowledge

Effective communication within team

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

sharing

2

2

2

2

commitment-

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

Share knowledge with peers

142

Appendix A: Forms of PAL Evaluations Motivation-

Learning is observed frequently in team

Remarks: 1= behavior is NOT observed 2= seldom observed 3= Behavior is sometimes observed 4= behavior can be seen quite often 5= Behavior s readily observed, and becomes the culture

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

Appendix B

Project Stakeholder-Task-File Triads

Phase Initiating (I)

Planning (P)

Task Feasibility study

Stakeholder Customer/user Technical experts Senior management

Project evaluation and selection

Senior management Technical experts Department manager Project accounting

Identify resource requirement Defines project scope and objectives

Project manager Subject matter expert Department manager Project manager Senior management

Develop work breakdown structure (WBS)

Project manager Subject matter expert Department manager Project office

Project file Feasibility study report (generalized project requirements and predictable results) Technical capability and conceptual solution Project scope statement Initial project goals and objectives Project cost and benefit estimates Project alternatives evaluation and rating Customer tasks and performance requirements Customer tasks and performance requirements Related studies, documents and specifications Preliminary scope statement WBS

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8

143

144

Appendix B: Project Stakeholder-Task-File Triads Develop detail schedule

Project manager Subject matter expert Department manager PM office

Cost estimation and budget planning Review WBS cost

Project accounting

Define performance requirement Develop project charter Communicati on plan Risk management planning

Department manager Project manager Senior management Customer/User Technical expert Project manager Project manager PM office Department manager Senior manager Project manager PM office Project manager Technical expert Department manager PM office

WBS dictionary Network schedule (PERT/CPM) Statement of work Activity duration estimating worksheet WBS Cost Estimates Document Budget plan Quotation document

Project Budget Cost Estimates Document Technical objective Business objective Assumptions and constraints Project organizational charter (PM authority, business assumption and constraints, project description, condition, objectives and scope, stakeholders and their roles) Project organizational charter Risk analysis report and contingency Independent review and audit Risk management plan Lessons learned files Program documentation evaluation Current performance data Interviews and other data from subject matter expert Trend analysis

Appendix B: Project Stakeholder-Task-File Triads Executing (E)

Monitoring & Controlling (M)

Authorize department to begin work

Senior manager Project manager Department manager

Coordinate ongoing activities

Project manager Department manager Functional employee

Measuring progress

Project manager PM office

Management stakeholder expectation

Project manager PM office

Integrated change control Control schedule Control cost

Project manager PM office

Quality control

Project manager PM office

Project manager PM office Customer Management Project manager PM office

145 Project organizational charter Detailed WBS Project Team Directory Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) Project organizational charter Detailed WBS Project Team Directory Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) Project Status Report Project Change Requests Log Project Issues Log Project Schedule Project Budget WBS Project Budget Project schedule PM Quality Assurance Report Project Status Report Work authorization form Project Change Requests Log Project schedule Project Status Report Cost analysis report Cost account change notice Labor analysis report Budget log Performance report (BCWS, BCWP, ACWO) Status report Projection report (EAC, ETC,SPI,CPI) Expectation report Project organizational charter Work Quality Plan WBS Lessons Learned Document PM Quality Assurance Report PM Process Improvement Document

146

Appendix B: Project Stakeholder-Task-File Triads

Closure (C)

Report performance

Project manager PM office

Control risk

Project manager PM office

Complete project records and reports Post project analysis

Project manager PM office

Preparing financial payment Transferring responsibility

PM office Project manager PM office

Responsibility transfer report

Resource reallocation

Senior manager Project manager PM office

Resource reallocation report

Project manager PM office

Project Team Performance Assessment Project Status Report Project Issues Log Project organizational charter WBS Risk Response Plan Project summary and reflection Project Team Performance Assessment Lessons Learned Document PM Process Improvement Document Project financial report

Appendix C

Role Instrument

The Readiness for Organizational Learning and Evaluation Instrument (ROLE) Directions Before you begin responding to the items, please check one of the two boxes below to indicate whether you will be thinking about the organization as a whole, or your department /unit as the focus for your ratings. Base this decision on the entity with which you are most familiar. For example, if you are part of a large department it probably makes sense to respond in terms of your department. On the other hand, if you are very familiar with the organization as a whole, you can respond in terms of the organization.

1. I will be thinking about the entire organization. 2. I will be thinking about my department/ unit.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8

147

148

Appendix C: Role Instrument For each of the items below, mark the number that best represents your opinion based on your experiences, and not on how you think other individuals would answer, or your organization’s official policy or intent. Please mark your answer with 1 to 5 Strongly disagree----------------------------Strongly agree 1

2

3

4

5

Culture Collaboration and Problem Solving 1. Employees respect each other’s perspectives and opinions. 2. Employees ask each other for information about work issues and activities. 3. Employees continuously look for ways to improve processes, products, and services. 4. Employees are provided opportunities to think about and reflect on their work. 5. Employees often stop to talk about the pressing work issues they’re facing. 6. When trying to solve problems, employees use a process of working through the problem before identifying solutions. 7. There is little competition among employees for recognition or rewards. 8. Employees operate from a spirit of cooperation, rather than competition. 9. Employees tend to work collaboratively with each other. 10. Employees are more concerned about how their work contributes to the success of the organization than they are about their individual success. 11. Employees face conflict over work issues in productive ways. 12. Employees generally view problems or issues as opportunities to learn. Risk Taking 13. Mistakes made by employees are viewed as opportunities for learning. 14. Employees continuously ask themselves how they’re doing, what they can do better, and what is working. 15. Employees are willing to take risks in the course of their work. 16. Employees are committed to being innovative and forward looking. 17. Employees are confident that mistakes or failures will not affect them negatively. Participatory Decision Making 18. Employees generally trust their managers or supervisors. 19. Managers and supervisors view individuals’ capacity to learn as the organization’s greatest resource. 20. Employees use data/ information to inform their decision-making. 21. Asking questions and raising issues about work is encouraged. 22. Employees are not afraid to share their opinions even if those opinions are

Answer

Appendix C: Role Instrument different from the majority. 23. I feel safe explaining to others why I think or feel the way I do about an issue. 24. Employees are encouraged to take the lead in initiating change or in trying to do something different. 25. Managers and supervisors make decisions after considering the input of those affected. 26. In meetings employees are encouraged to discuss the values and beliefs that underlie their opinions. 27. Employees are encouraged to offer dissenting opinions and alternative.

Leadership 28. Managers and supervisors admit when they don’t know the answer to a question. 29. Managers and supervisors take on the role of coaching, mentoring and facilitating employees’ learning. 30. Managers and supervisors help employees understand the value of experimentation and the learning that can result from such endeavors. 31. Managers and supervisors make realistic commitments for employees (e.g., time, resources, workload). 32. Managers and supervisors understand that employees have different learning styles and learning needs. 33. Managers and supervisors are more concerned with serving the organization than with seeking personal power or gain. 34. Managers and supervisors are open to negative feedback from employees. 35. Managers and supervisors model the importance of learning through their own efforts to learn. 36. Managers and supervisors believe that our success depends upon learning from daily practices. 37. Managers and supervisors support the sharing of knowledge and skills among employees. 38. Managers and supervisors provide the necessary time and support for systemic, long-term change. 39. Managers and supervisors use data/ information to inform their decision-making.

149

150

Appendix C: Role Instrument

Systems and Structures Open and Accessible Work Environment 40. There is little bureaucratic red tape when trying to do something new or different. 41. Workspaces are designed to allow for easy and frequent communication with each other. 42. There are few boundaries between departments/units that keep employees from working together. 43. Employees are available (i.e., not out of the office or otherwise too busy) to participate in meetings. Rewards and Recognition Systems and Practices 44. Employees are recognized or rewarded for learning new knowledge and skills. 45. Employees are recognized or rewarded for helping solve business/ organizational problems. 46. The current reward or appraisal system recognizes, in some way, team learning and performance. 47. Employees are recognized or rewarded for helping each other learn. 48. Employees are recognized or rewarded for experimenting with new ideas. Relationship of Work to Organizational Goals 49. Employees understand how their work relates to the goals or mission of the organization. 50. Employees’ performance goals are clearly aligned with the organization’s strategic goals. 51. Employees meet work deadlines. Communication of Information Availability 52. Information is gathered from clients, customers, suppliers or other stakeholders to gauge how well we’re doing. 53. Currently available information tells us what we need to know about the effectiveness of our programs, processes, products, and services. 54. There are adequate records of past change efforts and what happened as a result.

Appendix C: Role Instrument

151 Dissemination

55. There are existing systems to manage and disseminate information for those who need and can use it. 56. Employees are cross-trained to perform various job functions. 57. Employees have access to the information they need to make decisions regarding their work. 58. Employees use technologies to communicate with one another. 59. When new information that would be helpful to others is learned or discovered, it gets disseminated to those individuals.

Teams 60. My department/ unit currently operates via (or is transitioning towards) a team-based structure. Yes, this is true. No, this is not true.

61. Employees are provided training on how to work as a team member. Yes, this is true. No, this is not true.

152

Appendix C: Role Instrument

62. My work is sometimes conducted as part of a working group that is or could be identified as a “team.” Yes, this is true. (Continue with item 63) No, this is not true. (Go to item 71)

Respond to items 63-70 based on your experiences as a team member. 63. When conflict arises among team members, it is resolved effectively. 64. Team members are open and honest with one another. 65. Team meetings are well facilitated. 66. Team meetings address both team processes and work content. 67. Team meetings strive to include everyone’s opinion. 68. Teams are encouraged to learn from each another and to share their learning with others. 69. Teams accomplish work they are charged to do. 70. Teams are an effective way to meet an organization’s goals. Evaluation Please use the following definition of evaluation when responding to she items below:

Evaluation is a process of systematic inquiry to provide information for decision- making about some object-a program, project, process, organization, system, or product. Use of the evaluation results might lead to making refinements to the program or to offering new services or products.

71. The integration of evaluation activities into our work has enhanced (or would enhance) the quality of decision making. 72. It has been (or would be) worthwhile to integrate evaluation activities into our daily work practices. 73. Managers and supervisors like (or would like) us to evaluate our efforts. 74. Evaluation helps (or would help) us provide better programs, processes, products and services. 75. There would be support among employees if we tried to do more (or any) evaluation work.

Appendix C: Role Instrument

153

76. Doing (more) evaluation would make it easier to convince managers of needed changes. 77. This would be a good time to begin (or renew or intensify) efforts to conduct evaluations. 78. There are evaluation processes in place that enable employees to review how ell changes we make are working.

Additional Information 79. Which of the following best describes your job category? (Check one.) First-Line Supervisor Middle Manager Senior Manager Administrative Production Sales Non- Managerial Professional Technical Customer Service Other 80. How long have you worked for this organization? (Check one.) Less than 6 months 6 months – 1 year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10 years More than 10 years *********************** Thank you for your cooperation ***********************

Source: Preskill, H. and R. T. Torres 1999, Evaluative Inquiry for Learning in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California, SAGE Publications.

Appendix D

Readiness Check

A. Readiness checklist for Management Filled by: _________________ Date: ____________________ Ready? Item Yes

No

1/ Readiness check Has the ROLE survey been conducted? Does the ROLE survey result show the organization is ready to implement OL practices?

2/ Vision realization Has the OL vision been established by the Management? Has the established OL vision been communicated to related parties?

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8

155

156

Appendix D: Readiness Check

3/ Strategy formation Are there goals setup for the established vision? Are there action plan to achieve the goals?

4/ Learning facilitation Is there a team (such as PAL committee) to organize the PAL activities? Has the facilitation team been setup to support facilitation activities? Is the system put in place to support the learning activities?

5/ Performance measurement Has the performance evaluation system been established? Has the performance reward system been established?

Appendix D: Readiness Check

157

B. Readiness checklist for Facilitator Filled by: _________________ Date: ____________________ Ready? Item Yes 1/ Learning facilitation Has the facilitator team been trained with necessary skills? Is the knowledge sharing platform (such as OLSS) available to use?

2/ Performance measurement Have all performance evaluation tools been available? Have the evaluation methods been clear for implementation?

No

Appendix E

OLSS Checklist

PAL practitioner Preparation Granted the access to the OLSS already? Can see the announcement of this PAL cycle in the system homepage? Initiation Phase Proposal ready and uploaded to the Problem proposals sub-module yet? Facilitation Phase Can see your own PAL homepage (portal) inside the Team workspaces sub-module? Have you managed the member list in the Attendees sub-module? Can you check the information/ materials in the Document library sub-module? Have you made the schedule for the upcoming meetings or training in the Calendar sub-module? Do you need to initiate any discussion or conversation (about difficulties or any others) in the Discussion sub-module? Have you notified the auto-email sent out from the system?

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8

159

160

Appendix E: OLSS Checklist Evaluation Phase Have you done the evaluation via the Survey sub-module inside the system? Self, Peer & Leader evaluations FWC evaluation

System administrator/ PAL facilitator Original OLSS is built upon Microsoft Windows Server system, Internet Information Services (IIS) and Microsoft .Net Framework 2.0 are required for set-up. Granted the access to the PAL practitioner already? Have those sub-modules been set-up? Problem proposals Facilitator Announcement Calendar Discussion Site Survey

Appendix F

PAL Application Forms

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8

161

162

Appendix F: PAL Application Forms

Appendix F: PAL Application Forms

163

Appendix G

F/W/C PAL Evaluation Instrument

Focus field Q1. This team has a clear definition about the problem of this PAL project Definition of Performance Goal

Q2. We are clear about the performance goals of this PAL project Q3. I see the gaps between the status quo and the objectives of this PAL project Q4. I clearly understand my individual roles and functions in this PAL project

Definition of Learning Goal

Planning & Methodology

Q5. I am clear about my learning goal in this PAL project Q6. I understand what can I learn from this PAL project Q7. I am clear about my growth objectives in this PAL project Q8. We know how to fulfill this PAL project Q9. We have a well-developed plan to achieve the PAL goals Q10. I know how to get my PAL project assignments done Will field Q11. I am very much interested in this PAL project

Attitude & Commitment

Q12. I will try to learn as much as I can from this PAL project Q13. I feel the implementation of PAL is important for the development of our organization

Q14. We will try our best efforts to achieve the PAL goals that we have set up Cooperation & Sharing

Reflection & Introspection

Q15. I will share my experience and knowledge with my PAL teammates Q16. I am willing to share my expertise with my PAL teammates Q17. I am willing to cooperate with my teammates on PAL project work Q18. I am willing to critically reflect on my own thinking and behaviors at work Q19. I am willing to keep myself open to the feedbacks from my teammates Q20. I am willing to learn from my mistakes at work

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. M. Y. Law and K. B. Chuah (eds.), Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23997-8

165

166

Appendix G: F/W/C PAL Evaluation Instrument Capability field Q21. I can communicate with my PAL teammates effectively Teamwork

Q22. We can provide mutual support to each other in our PAL team Q23. I can cooperate with my PAL teammates effectively Q24. We can identify the underlying whole structure/causality of an encountered problem

System Thinking

Q25. We can identify the root causes of encountered problems at work Q26. We can provide high leverage solutions to resolve the problems at work Q27. If I have different opinions, I will advocate my perspectives in a mild way Q28. When conflict occurs, we calmly use dialogue to explore the whole picture of the

Dialogic Inquiry

problem Q29. If I hear different opinions, I will inquire the underlying assumptions and inferences of their opinions