Trust, Collaboration, e-Learning and Organisational Transformation

While theoretically distinct, learning and knowing are meshed in practice. This paper builds on this observation and argues that organisational transformation and the development of best practices in e-learning share some similar context. This is particularly evident when knowledge management perspectives are considered. Specifically, trust and collaboration are shown to be common enablers of both activities. A range of interrelated models is introduced with trust identified as prominent within a complex mix of processes and outputs that can be described in terms of interoperability. Collaboration and interoperability are identified as key organising principles in information-based and knowledge-based economies. Through collaboration common goals and mutual benefit are discerned and pursued; duplication of effort is minimized; innovation is stimulated. Achieving technical interoperability demands use of networks in ways that harness the aggregate capacity of disparate systems, applications, and services. The resulting infrastructure matches requirements of both e-learning and organisational transformation. Introduction Achieving organisational transformation that is consistent with best practice approaches to e-learning is not a trivial exercise. Such a challenge, while associated with the young but maturing domain of e-learning, calls for an examination of practices and methods that may already be well established. While ‘Promising Practices’ are worthy of consideration, the concept of something promising is semantically loaded toward emergent, future or unproven methodologies. This paper discusses tried and validated practices that can be applied to both challenges: that is, of achieving organisational transformation and developing effective e-learning environments. In this regard, trust is identified as a primary enabler of a complex mix of processes and outputs that appear at this nexus. Processes involving consensus building, consultation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing all depend upon trust for effectiveness. For various technical and standardisation forums around the world, the desired output of these processes is a robust and viable e-learning marketplace. But for e-learning to mature and be supported by such a viable marketplace where there is easy access to quality content, applications and tools, technologies that work are a critical requirement. Moreover, these technologies that work must be trusted technologies – technologies that are validated, properly supported and that conform to established technical standards. Online banking can be seen as a useful example in this regard: mainstream adoption simply did not take place until the systems in the marketplace could be trusted. With trust identified as a common enabler in both processes and outputs of communities of practice, a number of supporting models are introduced. An interoperability schema shows the interdependencies between the politics of This paper was written for eLearnInternational, Edinburgh, February 2003 and is published in the International Journal of Training and Development, December 2003, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 259-270(12) Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/bpl/ijtd 1 consensus building through to the achievement of technical implementations that deliver interoperable technical systems. Key layers in this schema are political, semantic, syntactic, and technical. Political interoperability involves declarations of intent, the pursuit of a common goal, and the agreement of the ground rules of collaboration. Semantic interoperability involves processes that establish shared meaning; and outputs that enable such things as the deployment of classification systems, taxonomies, shared vocabularies and metadata schema. Syntactic interoperability involves protocols for the development and implementation of structured data and information – and structured content can be seen as the foundation of modular, component-based e-learning architectures. Finally, technical interoperability is an expression of all preceding layers together with technical developments that leverage such things as a range of best practice software tools. Organisationally, effective collaboration depends upon trust. A model that depicts the interrelationships involving collaboration – networking, coordination, and cooperation – is discussed. Collaboration and interoperability are identified as key organising principles in the various expressions of information-based and knowledge-based economies and both can be described as value-streams in a networked society. Through collaboration common goals and mutual benefit are discerned and pursued; duplication of effort is minimized; innovation is stimulated. Achieving technical interoperability demands use of networks in ways that harness the aggregate capacity of disparate systems, applications, and services. Such a goal matches requirements for both e-learning and organisational transformation. However, infrastructure alone is insufficient as a basis for collaboration. Collaboration needs to be situated within a framework that attends to organisational knowledge management. A model of the key facets of knowing is presented as a means for understanding the diversity of processes involved in the production, flow, transfer, and management of knowledge in this context. This model is then used to discuss developments in e-learning, and the technologies, standards and infrastructures that are being developed to support it. In combining these models the paper also draws upon the literature concerning the significance of communities of practice. It is argued that within such socioorganisational forms – if appropriately supported – key success factors for organisational transformation and best practice in e-learning can be identified. Reviewing the Literature There is substantial literature on organisational learning, renewal, reorganisation, revitalisation and the development of associated capabilities. In this paper we use the term ‘organisational transformation’ to refer to all of this. That literature tells us that transformation is much sought, but rarely fully achieved. It contains many accounts of failed attempts to effect transformations, whether the goals are seemingly modest (involving targets that are apparently within reach, and apparently undemanding, incremental, involving gradualistic change) or ambitious (involving more rapid or more radical change). Much attention has been given, in that literature and by consultancies involved in change management, to identifying critical success factors, such as ensuring that all involved in an organisational transformation initiative are fully supportive of the initiative and appreciate the consequences of failure, both for their organisation and for themselves and their colleagues. Yet despite all this activity This paper was written for eLearnInternational, Edinburgh, February 2003 and is published in the International Journal of Training and Development, December 2003, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 259-270(12) Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/bpl/ijtd 2 and analysis, it remains hard to bring about the requisite degree of organisational transformation. Mainstream approaches are clearly not up to the task. We contend that the literature on organisational transformation is deficient on two counts. First, insufficient attention has been given to interactions on scales far below the level of the entire organisation (i.e., between individuals, rather than at the level of departments or work-groups). One consequence is that emergent behaviour comes as a surprise, both within organisations and in their environment. Second, insufficient consideration has been given to the link between individual and group learning, on the one hand, and individual and group trust and collaboration, on the other. In making these assertions, we acknowledge that there is a growing recognition of the important role of trust and collaboration at managerial level, particularly to aid with sense-making and managing complexity. But we feel that progress will continue to be slow unless use is made of multidisciplinary approaches (e.g., modelling of mechanisms for generating and maintaining trust and collaboration within e-learning and organisational transformation). In particular, attention needs to be given to linking insights from different literatures about context: for example, how learning and trustbuilding in informal settings (outside work) relate to what happens within organizations, whether face-to-face or mediated by technology as in e-learning and computer conferencing. Our contentions stem from frequent, but anecdotal, observations about the inability of large organisations to make sense of and respond to the emergence of new technologies (e.g., the Internet, at a gross level, or Web Services or e-Learning, at a finer level of detail). Given that such technologies are potential components of approaches that could yield organisational transformation, it is disquieting if the decision-makers in an organisation act, Canute-like, to restrict their use. This may indicate a lack of understanding of how to use those technologies and/or a lack of interest in the role of individuals in their diffusion and effective use. Alternative views are easy to find: “The story of the creation and development of the Internet is one of an extraordinary human adventure. It highlights people’s capacity to transcend institutional goals, overcome bureaucratic barriers, and subvert established values in the process of ushering in a new world. It also lends support to the view that cooperation and freedom of information may be more conducive to innovation than competition and proprietary rights.” (Castells, 2001:9) The ‘rise of the network society’ and globalisation in all its forms demonstrates networking to be a powerful configuration principle operating across multiple domains, most notably the social and technological (Castells, 1996). But while social networks are largely self-organising (an important principle throughout the whole of nature), technological networks (such as those that support the Internet) are primarily designed. In the many settings where e-learning now proceeds there is a confluence of these domains, triggering drivers of transformation in both individual and This paper was written for eLearnInternational, Edinburgh, February 2003 and is published in the International Journal of Training and Development, December 2003, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 259-270(12) Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/bpl/ijtd 3 organisational practice. Further informing these perspectives is the literature on ‘communities of practice’ primarily articulated by Etienne Wenger (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al, 2002). Norris, Mason, and Lefrere have recently highlighted the potentialities for sharing ‘eknowledge’ enabled by advances in knowledge management, e-learning, and pervasive computing (Norris et al, 2003). However, while such potentialities exist harnessing them for transformative outcomes is another matter. In meeting this challenge Norris et al introduce a number of models that are developed further in this paper. With this context in mind we now turn to the primary topics of collaboration and trust. Collaboration The practice of collaboration has historically been associated with both virtue and vice. Accordingly, modern day terrorist ‘cells’ are labelled as evil while governments collaborating to counter their impact (with open, democratic dissent) are portrayed as righteous. While closely related to networking, collaboration can be understood as a process that exploits a networked environment. In the words of Arthur Himmelman: “Networking is exchanging information for mutual benefit. Coordination is exchanging information and altering activities for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose. Cooperation is exchanging information, altering activities, and sharing resources, for mutual benefit, and to achieve a common purpose. Collaboration is exchanging information, altering activities, sharing resources, and enhancing the capacity of another [individual or] organisation, for mutual benefit, and to achieve a common purpose.” (Himmelman, 1993:1) While there are many variations on this (see, for example Allwood, et al) Himmelman’s concise schema has been adopted here in order to both link and distinguish the semantics of networking and collaboration. In further situating this semantic framework within the context of contemporary e-learning and knowledge management a close relationship to learning and organisational development can be discerned. That is, while organisational development can be strongly shaped by these four categories, learning in a highly networked environment can be facilitated by collaboration. In both e-learning and knowledge management contexts collaboration is enabled by the technological infrastructure. So much so that international standardisation groups are focused on work to develop common approaches to facilitating collaborative learning (SC36). Such approaches, while not yet mature, appraise collaboration more in terms of its usefulness and utility and as utilising communication as well as information technology. Whether through simple implementations via email reflectors and web-based forums or via peer-to-peer networked applications or sophisticated architectures – such as the Open Knowledge Initiative or the Internet2 Commons – collaboration is identified as a key activity to enable and support. However, operationalising such frameworks can prove to be an ongoing challenge to e-learning and organisational development. This paper was written for eLearnInternational, Edinburgh, February 2003 and is published in the International Journal of Training and Development, December 2003, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 259-270(12) Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/bpl/ijtd 4 As both a dynamic process and a description of an event collaboration can be sometimes highly complex. It’s not necessarily a straightforward matter of agreeing to do something together, to work toward a common goal for reasons of efficiency or expertise aggregation, to develop economies of scale, to leverage complementary competencies, to enhance a learning experience, or to position oneself or one’s organisation better for technology transfer or access to markets – even if that’s where it begins! If it involves many stakeholders and the ‘network density’ is high (Nooteboom, 2002) it is better described as a ‘complex adaptive system’, just like many biological systems such as ecologies. And if learning is a desired output then complexity will likely shape the process (Inkpen, 2001:21). For learning theorist, Etienne Wenger, learning is defined as “the engine of practice, and practice is the history of that learning” (Wenger, 1998: 96). Such a recursive description has important implications when identifying the intersections and synergies between e-learning and knowledge management. The recursive description is also important in Wenger’s work where his attention is very much on process issues. And given his primary analysis is focused on the dynamics of informal learning within ‘communities of practice’ he makes use of the concept of ‘duality’ to describe the interplay of explicit and implicit knowledge (1998: 68-9). Such notions are also used in foresight construction where the identification of real-world tension axes can be seen as a useful tool in developing plausible (‘know-if’) scenarios to assist in organisational planning. At a macro level a natural tension has historically been present between ‘society’ and ‘technology’. Communities of practice are increasingly being seen as playing a leading role in the management of knowledge, streamlining workflow and sustaining organisational intellectual capital, both within and across organisational boundaries. They represent an organisational form that provides a balancing influence to the traditional hierarchical forms of organisational structure and are the “heart and soul of knowledge sharing” (Denning, et al, 2002). And without knowledge sharing there’s not much of a knowledge economy! An important characteristic of communities of practice and the pool of competencies they draw from is they are largely self-organising. They, or their knowledge, cannot be conscripted in the same way that workgroups or organisational teams might be assigned tasks (Snowden, 2002). The defining feature of communities of practice is the sharing of tacit knowledge through informal interactions among members. Wenger further elaborates: “The development of practice takes time, but what defines a community of practice in its temporal dimension is not just a matter of a specific amount of time. Rather, it is a matter of sustaining enough mutual engagement in pursuing an enterprise together to share some significant learning. From this perspective, communities of practice can be thought of as shared histories of learning.” (Wenger, 1998: 86) Recognition of the roles played by communities of practice has important implications not only for organisational development and transformation but also for learning. Within this current discourse, learning can be understood as a cognitive process that transforms existing (individual or organisational) knowledge. Thus, no matter how well designed a Managed Learning Environment, Learning Management System, or Enterprise Workflow System might be the practice of a stakeholder’s This paper was written for eLearnInternational, Edinburgh, February 2003 and is published in the International Journal of Training and Development, December 2003, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 259-270(12) Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/bpl/ijtd 5 engagement with it will always carry with it a tacit potentiality. In well-designed systems there may even be mechanisms for capturing some of this tacit information in order to inform future designs. Systems may be designed to facilitate a diversity of learning experiences and opportunities for knowledge sharing but ultimately the scope of any learning experience is unpredictable and likely to have qualities or dimensions to it that are un-encodable. Figure I represents a model that attempts to describe the complex nature of the recursive value-chain of data-information-knowledge when processes of learning, communicating, and knowing are accommodated. In this model the fundamental knowledge development process of sense-making can equally apply to individuals, communities of practice or organisations. In the digital domain one person’s knowledge will always be another’s data or information dependent upon context and application. And an organisation or individual always needs to make sense of (ascribe meaning to) data, information, or explicit knowledge in order to learn.