c Annabi 2005
Learning Objectives Critique the conceptual foundations to
organizational learning Distinguish between individual level and
organizational level learning Identify steps in the organizational learning process Identify steps in the organizational learning process Identify factors that enhance or impede Identify factors that enhance or impede
organizational learning organizational learning Critique the conceptual foundation of the concept of
CoP Explain how organizations may cultivate CoPExplain how organizations may cultivate CoP Identify effective practices within CoPIdentify effective practices within CoP Explain how organizations may organize CoP to
align with business objectives
c Annabi 2005
Overview
Organizational Learning Theoretical Foundation Individual vs. organizational learning OSS Example
Break Communities of Practice
Presenting the case Working on the case and Discussion Research Recommendations
c Annabi 2005
Organizational learning in light of knowledge-based view of the firmKnowledge-based view“the primary role of the firm [is] integrating the
specialized knowledge resident in individuals into goods and services. The primary task of management is establishing the coordination necessary for this knowledge integration.”
Knowledge integration: organizational learning
c Annabi 2005
Why Organizational Learning? (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Argyris, 1999)
adapting to the environment avoiding stability traps experimenting rethinking means and ends correcting for error innovating realizing human potential for learning in the service
of organizational purposes creating organizational settings as contexts for
human development
c Annabi 2005
Theoretical Orientations to Learning in Psychology
Theorist View of the Learning Process Locus of Learning
Behaviorist Thorndike, Pavlov, Skinner
Change in behavior Stimuli in external environment
Cognitive Lewin, Piaget, Bruner
Internal mental process (including insight, information processing, memory, perception)
Internal cognitive structuring
Humanist Maslow, Rogers
A personal act to fulfill potential Affective and cognitive needs
Social and Situational
Lave and Wenger, Handura
Interaction and observation in social contexts. Movement from the periphery to the center of a community of practice
Learning is a relationship between people and environment
c Annabi 2005
Questions of Organizational Learning?
What does Organizational Learning mean?
Who is learning?
What is being learned?
When does learning take place?
What results does learning yield?
How does learning take place?
c Annabi 2005
What is Organizational Learning?Reference Definition
Cyert and March (1963) Is adaptive behavior of organizations over time
Cangelosi and Dill (1965) A series of interactions between adaptation at the individual, or subgroup level and adaptation at the organizational level
Argyris and Schön (1978) The process by which organizational members detect errors or anomalies and correct them by restructuring organizational theory in use
Duncan and Weiss (1979) The process within the organization by which knowledge about action-outcome relationships and the effect of the environment on these relationships is developed
Fiol and Lyles (1985) The process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding
Levitt and March (1988) Organizations are seen as learning by encoding inferences from history into routine behavior
Huber (1991) An entity learns if, through the processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed…
c Annabi 2005
Who is learning?
Individual Group Organization
c Annabi 2005
In groups of 3-4, please address the following questions? Who learns in organizations?
Individuals Groups Organizations
What are the indicators of that learning?
c Annabi 2005
What is being learned?
Rules and standard operating procedures (Cyert & March, 1963; Levitt & March, 1988)
Decisions reached (Cangelosi & Dill, 1965), cognitive and behavioral changes (M. C. Fiol & Lyles,
1985)
Theories-in-use (Argyris & Schön, 1978) Organizational knowledge (Duncan & Weiss, 1979; Huber,
1991).
c Annabi 2005
When does learning take place?
Slack in resources (Cyert & March, 1963; Duncan & Weiss, 1979)
Stress or tension (Cangelosi & Dill, 1965; M. C. Fiol & Lyles, 1985) Error or mismatch of expectations (Argyris & Schön,
1978; Levitt & March, 1988)
Innovation (Annabi, 2005)
c Annabi 2005
What results does learning yield?
Improved performance better adaptation and alignment to the
environment (Cyert & March, 1963; Duncan & Weiss, 1979; M. C. Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Levitt & March, 1988)
reduction of stress (Cangelosi & Dill, 1965)
better range of action strategies of potential behaviors (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Huber, 1991)
Does all Learning Lead to Improvement?
c Annabi 2005
How does learning take place?Framework Approach Orientation Learning
Cyter and March (1963)
Explanatory Behavioral development Explicit
Argyris and Schon (1978)
Normative Single-loop vs. double-loop learning
Lower vs. higher level cognition
Explicit
Fiol and Lyles (1985) Explanatory Lower and higher-level cognition
Explicit
Levitt and March (1988)
Explanatory Behavioral development and cognitive development
Explicit and implicit
Huber (1991) Explanatory Behavioral development and cognitive development
Explicit and implicit
c Annabi 2005
From Individual Learning to Group Learning: The Case of Apache Web Server Project
Annabi 2005
c Annabi 2005
The Issue OSS groups are distributed Rely on contributions from volunteers Many contributions come from outside the
core
Core development challenge: how to minimize the challenges of being distributed and manage large contributions from inside and outside of the core
c Annabi 2005
OSS Development Challenge ExploredDifficult because of potential for: Miscommunication Misunderstanding Problems in product and process
management Coordination difficulties Limited availability of expert knowledge
c Annabi 2005
Group Learning is Needed
Integrate the knowledge of developers and users into an effective product through effective processes
Need to understand the learning process in OSS groups
c Annabi 2005
Research Questions
RQ1: What are the characteristics of the group-learning process in a distributed environment?
RQ1a: How do distributed groups change rules and procedures?
RQ1b: How do distributed groups change shared mental models?
RQ2: What are the factors that impede or enhance group learning?
c Annabi 2005
Research Design Naturalistic setting Single embedded case study design
Apache Web Server Learning opportunity episode
Data Sources Observation of email interactions Documentation E-mail interviews (limited)
Content Analysis Three content analytic schemes
c Annabi 2005
Theoretical Framework for Learning Process in Distributed Groups (Annabi 2005)
Organizational ContextCorporate participation
Group DesignCompositionTask
Task ManagementDiscussion of strategyCritical analysisDeveloping shared mental models
Group Learning:Rules, procedures or guidelinesShared mental models
Facilitators and BarriersResourcesIndividual ContributionLeadershipGroup InteractionCore Developers’ Interest
Input
Learning Process
Output
Triggers:ExternalInternal
Group StructureSMMRules, ProceduresRole Structure
Individual LearningGroup MaintenanceInteractionCohesionConflict resolution
Learning Episode
c Annabi 2005
Content Analytic Schemes
Episode Level (e.g.) Focus (product, process, or both) Type of Learning Opportunity Learning outcome
Learning Process Task Management Group Maintenance Individual Contribution
Learning Triggers Internal External
c Annabi 2005
Overview of Learning Opportunity Episodes Focus and Learning Outcomes
Focus of Episode
(Process or Product)
Learning OutcomeTotal of focus of episodeNo
Learning
Shared Mental Models
Rule
Both Rules and Shared
Mental Models
Process 16 10 10 14 50
Product 9 63 2 5 79
Product and Process 3 20 2 24 49
Total Learning Outcome 28 93 14 43 178
c Annabi 2005
Finding 1: Group learning requires interaction
Individual contributions are important to group learning but are not sufficient
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Nu
mb
er o
f P
osti
ng
s
Activity
Learning
Alpha1st Public eleaseApache 0.62
BetaApache Rewrite
Public Release of (rewrite) Apache 0.8
StableApache1.0
c Annabi 2005
Findings 2: Development of shared mental models is central to the group learning process
91% of learning episodes resulted in developing shared mental models
9% of learning episodes led only to developing rules and guidelines
Shared mental model indicators were pervasive in all types of learning opportunity episodes
c Annabi 2005
Finding 3: A majority of learning opportunities had a product focus Outcome Number
Percentage of Total
Number of Episodes
Percentage of Episodes that
Led to Learning
No learning 28 16% 0%
Change in shared mental model 93 51% 62%
Change in rule 14 8% 9%
Change in both rule and shared mental model 43 25% 29%
178
c Annabi 2005
Finding 4: Product-focused episodes produce different learning than process-focused episodes
Focus of Episode
(Process or Product)
Learning Outcome
Total of focus of episode
No Learning
Shared Mental Models
Rule
Both Rules and Shared
Mental Models
Process 16 10 10 14 50
Product 9 63 2 5 79
Product and Process 3 20 2 24 49
Total Learning Outcome 28 93 14 43 178
c Annabi 2005
Findings 5: Core-developers are the main contributors to group learning Contributors to learning episodes are
predominantly core-developers 75% of Learning triggers in Apache were
generated from core-developers, and 25% of learning triggers are generated from external sources
Internal learning triggers generate more complex learning episodes (88%)
c Annabi 2005
Findings 6: The group devised their own learning mechanism Sharing information on code status
made up 20% of all learning triggers triggered 35% of complex episodes
c Annabi 2005
Findings 6: Examplesharing information on code statusExample (hyperreal 3/18/1995):
I've put apache-0.2.tar.Z into http://www.hyperreal.com/httpd/dist/It's based on the votes I read before sending this mail, which included Roy's which killed off some but revived others. Included are, B01_CERT_security.txt B02_linger.txt B06_log-no-stdio.txt [omitted due to space limitation]
All remaining patches should now be replaced with new patches which are relative to apache-0.2. Drop them in http://www.hyperreal.com/httpd/patches/for_Apache_0.2/...then we can start discussing them. All votes collected so far have now expired.
c Annabi 2005
Factors affecting group learning Member contribution Levels of group interaction Task constraints and focus Leadership behavior to facilitate the process Resources Conflict resolution
c Annabi 2005
Closing
“Knowledge about the process, or the know how, of learning facilitates corrections that simulate or accelerate learning” (Maier, et al. 2001, pg. 16).
c Annabi 2005
Questions?
Break 10 mins
c Annabi 2005
Communities of Practice
Hala Annabi
Paul Arnold and Chris Rivinus
c Annabi 2005
The Issue
Complex Organizations Predominance of specialized knowledge work Focus on core capabilities distributed pockets
of knowledge Management challenge: coordination of
knowledge sources for business objectives
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Management Challenge Explored..
Coordination of knowledge sources is problematic due to difficulties in: Identifying sources of knowledge Connecting disparate sources of knowledge Protecting against knowledge loss Applying knowledge towards business ends
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Solution: Learning Organization Identify knowledge sources Create mechanisms to connect across
geographical and disciplinary boundaries Integrate individual knowledge and
experience into organizational procedures, routines, product and services, norms and culture
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
How to Harness the Power of CoPs for Business Objectives? CoPs have been used to help manage
knowledge in organizations… Issues
Focus on knowledge exchange between individuals
Knowledge resides within single CoP- not across Limited integration
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
The Research How to utilize CoPs to leverage knowledge towards
business objectives? Instances in PB PANs
Human Resources Knowledge exchange across PANs Knowledge repository Global integration Increase efficiency Business development Innovation Disseminate cutting edge knowledge
Do these systematically in alignment with business strategy
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Presentation Agenda
Background PB and Practice Area Networks
Discussion Overview of Research Project Preliminary Research Results Discussion
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Parson Brinkerhoff Practice Area Networks (PANs)
PB History and StructurePANs History and StructureKnowledge Exchange at PB
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
History and Structure of PB 125 Year Old Firm Barclay Parsons & Klapp Over 9,000 Employees in over 200 Offices Project-Based Entrepreneurial Business Model Growth Through Project wins and Acquisition Accelerated Growth in the 90’s
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Geographic Distribution: North America
c Annabi 2005
Geographic Distribution: Europe
c Annabi 2005
Geographic Distribution: Middle East
c Annabi 2005
Geographic Distribution: Asia
c Annabi 2005
Geographic Distribution: Australia/New Zealand
c Annabi 2005
Practice Area Network = PAN PANs Created in 1994 Leadership: Voluntary Membership: Voluntary
History and Structure of PB
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Knowledge Exchange at PB
PAN Requestor
PAN Coordinator
c Annabi 2005
Knowledge Exchange at PB
Broadcast Request to PAN Members Around the Globe
c Annabi 2005
Knowledge Exchange at PB
Responses Routed through Coordinator to Requestor
c Annabi 2005
Overview of Research Project
Research Questions
Study Approach
c Annabi 2005
The Question:
How do we utilize CoPs to leverage knowledge towards business objectives?
What are the challenges? What should we do?
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Specific Research Questions To what extent do exchanges in the PAN
contribute to business objectives? What are the characteristics of the learning
process in the PANs? What are the factors that impede or enhance
organizational learning process?
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Approach: Two Phase Study
Exploratory Interview Phase Understanding the nature of the PANs and their
activities Determine the extent to which Organizational
Learning is taking place in the PANs Interview all PAN coordinators and some active
members
Investigation of Organizational Learning Episodes In-depth analysis of learning episodes in several
PANs
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Study Preliminary Results
Do PANs Contribute to Business Objectives?
How do PANs contribute to business objectives?
How to Best Harness the PANs for Business Objectives?
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Do PANs Contribute to Business Objectives? Yes
Contingent on PAN coordinator and steering committee efforts
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
How do PANs contribute to business objectives? Business Objectives
Human Resources Knowledge exchange across PANs Knowledge repository Global integration Increase efficiency Business development Innovation Disseminate cutting edge knowledge
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
How to Best Harness the PANs for Business Objectives?
c Annabi 2005
How to Best Harness the PANs for Business Objectives? Align PANs to business strategy Design each PAN to fit its specific objectives
and disciplinary nature Create Proper alignments between the PANs Empower PANs Prepare and empower PAN leadership
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Align PANs with Organizational Strategy Determine where PANs reside within organizational
structure Determine the role/roles of the PANs in contributing
to strategy Communicate the roles of PANs
Business Development Land Use Resource Center 1999 Facilitators
PAN Initiative Support
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Design PANs for Specific Objectives and Disciplinary Nature Diverse expertise and activities within PB Design to fit various roles
Global Integration Interdisciplinary and far reaching topics
(e.g. Environmental Planning) Transferring advanced practice around the
globe Facilitators
Supportive culture Individual willingness
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Create Proper Alignments between the PANs Align PANs - related objectives and focus Facilitate interactions across PANs- creative
collaborations
Knowledge Exchange across PANs & HR: Transfer from IT PAN to CADD PAN to
Project Administration PAN Facilitator
Alignment with CIO Collaboration between PANS OPP support
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
PAN Informal Collaboration
c Annabi 2005
Empower PANs Create supportive structure
Resources Reward Systems Authority and capabilities Flexible tools
Increased Efficiency Create a central processing for software
purchases Facilitators
Collaboration with corporate Initiative of PAN leadership Supportive culture
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Prepare and Empower PAN Leadership Articulate the Role of PAN leadership Time allocation Training and support
Innovation: PB CommentSense Created New tool Facilitators
Initiative Awareness of PAN members’ needs OPP support
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Take Away
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
The Learning Organization
Move from organizational learning to the learning organization
A system approach Align all organizational learning and
knowledge management efforts to business strategy
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
How to Harness the Power of CoPs for Business Objectives?
Align CoPs to organizational strategy Design each CoP to fit its specific objectives
and disciplinary nature Create Proper alignments between the CoPs Empower CoPs Prepare and empower CoPs leadership
University of Washington
c Annabi 2005
Questions and Discussion
c Annabi 2005
Episode Level Scheme Characteristic
Date
Topic
Focus (product, process, or both)
Type of Learning(shared mental models, rules, or both)
Trigger
Member initiating the episode
Learning outcome(no learning, shared mental models, rules, both)
c Annabi 2005
Refined Learning Triggers SchemeLearning Trigger Indicator
External User need*
New technology*
External influences*
Offer to contribution or new member (Grant 1996)
User identified error(Argyris & Schön, 1978)
Internal Misrepresentations or gaps in understanding*
Conflict (Gladstein)
Lack of resources (Hackman)
Error (Argyris & Schön, 1978)
Summarize/update/share information of code and product status*
Efficacy of the process (Anderson et. al.)
Innovation in the process*
Innovation in the product*
Member identified error (Argyris & Schön, 1978)
c Annabi 2005
Group Learning Process Scheme
Process Old Construct
Group maintenance
Interaction
Cohesion
Conflict
Task management Discussion of strategy
Critical Analysis
Shared mental models
Individual contribution
Level of effort brought to bear on the task
Amount of knowledge and skills applied