Learning to share learning: an exploration of methods to improve and share learning A report prepared for the UK Commission for Health Improvement March 2003

by Andrew Chetley and Rob Vincent Exchange

A networking and learning programme on health communication for development c/o Healthlink Worldwide 40 Adler Street London E1 1EE Website: www.healthcomms.org Tel: 020 7539 1591 E-mail: [email protected]

Contents Executive summary Introduction What is learning? Why is learning important? How do people learn? How do organisations learn? How do people and organisations share learning? Developing enabling environments for learning Using technology to share learning Techniques and methodologies to share learning Creating time and space Developing teams Communities of practice Storytelling Documenting learning in different ways Appreciative inquiry Conversations and dialogue Learning with stakeholders Conclusions References

1 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 15 18 19 20 22 24 26 27 29 29 33 35

Case studies Box 1: Learning trends Box 2: Producing and sharing learning through a dynamic workshop Box 3: A safe space to practice caring Box 4: Measure what counts Box 5: Creating a sharing culture: the experience of BP Box 6: Informal learning in the NHS Box 7: Sharing learning: the experience of Soul City and Puntos de Encuentro Box 8: The ‘dreaded database’: a cautionary note Box 9: CDRA: making the learning organisation literal Box 10: Sharing learning: 11 key practices from New Zealand Box 11: Sharing learning: ‘the way we do things’ Box 12: Doing the impossible by sharing learning at Xerox Box 13: Using electronic communication to support communities of practice Box 14: Most Significant Change: using stories to share learning Box 15: Creative ways of sharing lessons at ActionAid Box 16: Sharing values and making plans together Box 17: World Bank: listening and learning from clients and stakeholders Box 18: The Effectiveness Initiative: understanding good process Box 19: CIET: building the community voice into planning

6 9 12 12 13 14 15 17 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 28 30 31 32

Executive summary This report was commissioned by the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) as part of its activities to share learning from patient and public involvement. A key aim of CHI’s approach is to encourage this learning to be embedded within NHS organisations to help them improve their practice. This report is an illustrated literature review drawing on studies in the fields of education, psychology, organisational learning, personal learning, and participatory approaches to explore understanding of good learning practice. It includes more than 15 case studies that illustrate methodologies and approaches used to share learning in the business, public, and voluntary sectors, paying particular attention to the types of processes that encourage engagement with diverse communities of interest or multiple stakeholders. Although there are many examples given in this report of the way in which particular techniques have been used to encourage sharing of learning, it would be wrong to assume that it is a straightforward process. One of the key issues to consider in any attempt to share learning is the question of control and power within the organisation.1 Effective learning can challenge existing control functions and power dynamics in an organisation. At Xerox (and many other companies), experience has shown that in order to encourage innovation, creativity and the sharing of learning, official business procedures need to be kept minimal to allow space for local innovations and interpretations. This is the way in which people in the organisation are most able to find real, practical and workable solutions to the problems they face. ‘The most valuable knowledge often resides where we are least able to see or control it: on the front lines, at the periphery, with the renegades. Companies that embrace the emergent can tap the logic of knowledge work and the spirit of community. Those that don’t will be left behind.’ 2 Peter Senge, author of one of the most important books on organisational learning - The Fifth Discipline - makes the point that he has 'never seen a successful organisationallearning program rolled out from the top. Not a single one … Just as nothing in nature starts big, so the way to start creating change is with a pilot group - a growth seed. As you think about a pilot group, there are certain choices that you have to make in order to make the group work. The first choice goes back to the issue of compliance versus commitment: Will the change effort be driven by authority or by learning?’ 3 Within the NHS, there are examples of learning processes – often informal – that are emerging at the periphery in response to local needs. These can form the basis of growing and developing learning processes that will build on existing strengths and resources, that will recognise and reward creativity and innovation, and will stimulate others to emulate these process and find their own approaches that will enable them to more effectively engage with the stakeholders in the health service. Learning involves a process of change, some of it unpredictable. Learning is never a linear process. It is a complex process and although there are many tools and techniques

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 1

that can help it, effective learning transforms the individuals involved, the organisations involved and the stakeholders with whom they interact. Critical issues that are explored in the report include: • the types of systems that encourage, support and reward learning • the need to listen, to adapt and to revise plans in the light of learning • the readiness to take risks, to make mistakes, to ask for help • the commitment of time, space and resources to learning and sharing of learning • the need to focus on how people learn best and how they can most easily share the understandings and learning that comes from experience and practice • the role of technology in supporting learning processes when used wisely. This report is not a guide to what will work every time to encourage learning. Nor is it a guide to a set of tricks and techniques for disseminating or sharing learning. The tools for doing that best emerge out of a process of learning. Indeed, a process of learning that focuses on strengthening the opportunities for people to exchange views, to dialogue about their strengths and their understanding, to explore together what they know and what they wish to learn is already creating powerful mechanisms for sharing learning. However sharing of learning is approached, ongoing dialogue needs to be supported, and particular tools or techniques are no short cut to the time and investment that this requires. There are resource implications that cannot be ignored, and commitments that have to be made if genuine learning is to be supported.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 2

Introduction This report brings together a number of case studies from many different sectors that illustrate a range of methods for sharing learning. This helps to show the different depths of approaches to learning - from simple techniques to strategic approaches – and gives an overview of how these might relate to and complement each other at various levels of an organisation and its engagement with stakeholders. The approaches presented sit on a continuum, from simple methods for the effective sharing of particular lessons and experiences, to initiatives that have aimed at thoroughgoing public involvement in setting health priorities, so that iterative learning is at the heart of the process. The table below sets out some of the main case studies covered in this report according to the depth or complexity of the approach used and the organisational level such an approach reaches. Complexity ranges from simple tools, through an integrated approach involving a range of tools or methodologies, to system-wide analysis. The organisational level ranges from action at a particular unit or on a particular process, through action affecting a programme or project, to an overall organisational or strategic impact, to a wider impact on the broader society or environment in which an organisation is situated.

Tool

Specific unit or process • E-mail exchange (Soul City/Puntos) • Outcome measures (World Bank)

Programme/ project level • After Action Review (BP) • Electronic workspaces (Bellanet, World Bank) •

Integrated approach

•

Societal/ environmental

•

Appreciative Inquiry (Canada)

Tanzania local • • CDRA Homeweek • Effectiveness content Initiative workshop • CIET Social (IICD/ Audit COSTECH) Table 1: summary of possible learning approaches according to the complexity of the approach and the organisational level it works on System-wide analysis

•

Communities of Practice (Xerox) Multi-Sectoral Team Learning (World Bank) Story-telling/ Most Significant Change (VSO)

Organisational/ strategic • Lessons database (Bellanet, DAC, Exchange) • Collective reflection (New Zealand) • ALPS (ActionAid)

In any process of learning and sharing of learning, there are a number of tensions that are likely to emerge. These include the tension between: • producing particular products that document learning or tools to help stimulate learning versus embedding learning processes • the desire to have a standardised model or package of learning versus the need to accommodate people’s different learning styles

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 3

• • •

focusing on a few ‘good’ or ‘best’ practices that have been validated versus encouraging and enabling processes to draw out and develop local ‘living’ practices that emerge and evolve from experience collecting and centralising a store of knowledge, experience and learning so that it can be drawn on to improve overall policy versus encouraging local autonomy to identify and learn from approaches that are effective at a local level developing and investing heavily in complicated technological solutions to capture and share (usually explicit) knowledge and learning versus supporting, encouraging and investing in people-centred approaches that encourage the sharing of (usually tacit) knowledge, experience and learning.

Much of the experience in this area suggests that this is not an either/or choice, but rather that a range of complementary approaches, tools and methods are needed. At the same time, there needs to be attention to processes of learning and the things needed to support them, rather than particular tools or techniques as magic bullets. Deeper understandings of ‘best practice’ increasingly emphasise the learning process, and the need for constant revision and adaptation. UNAIDS, for example, describes best practice as ‘the continuous process of learning, feedback, reflection and analysis of what works (or does not work) and why’.4 This suggests a type of ‘living’ practice – a process of taking the learning from practice and feeding it back to modify and adapt the practice in a continuous process of improvement. The focus is not so much on how to do a particular activity better, but on how to continue to learn from (and therefore to improve on) what is being done. Living practice is a process or journey towards regular and consistent improvement, regular and continual learning. It moves away from fixed goals as the main focus and towards a more iterative and organic approach to learning that enables the goals themselves to be modified and changed in a flexible and sensitive manner as understanding of the situation and all the factors affecting it increases. Living practice is what we all do in our daily lives, when we have the space, time and confidence. It is how we adapt to changing circumstances. It is this adaptation that enables creative solutions to be found to the challenges we all face in any organisation in today’s rapidly changing world. In summary, it is the processes of learning rather than particular products that are most important. Learning cannot be sustained and really embedded unless it is at multiple levels of an organisation and part of an integrated strategy.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 4

What is learning? Learning covers all our efforts to absorb, understand, and respond to the world around us. Learning is social. Learning happens on the job every day. Learning is the essential process in expanding the capabilities of people and organisations.5 Etienne Wenger, one of the leading commentators on learning in an organisational context, says ‘learning is the process of personal transformation which increases one's ability to participate in the world, in society’.6 Learning is not just about knowledge. It is also about skills, insights, beliefs, values, attitudes, habits, feelings, wisdom, shared understandings and self-awareness. Questioning, listening, challenging, enquiring and taking action are crucial to effective learning. There is no one right way to learn for everybody and for every situation. 7 Knowledge and learning are inextricably linked and can be confused. Knowledge is often seen as a stock or resource, whereas learning is an ongoing activity.8 The interaction of these two is important. Knowledge only becomes useful and powerful when it is being used, when people are working with it, when they are engaged with it, when they are learning from and with it, and when they are adapting, reviewing, growing and transforming the knowledge. Learning involves information exchange, not information transfer. Training is more closely related to information transfer – where something that is already known is transferred to someone else. ‘Learning, by contrast, implies a process of self-directed exploration and discovery, in search of something not yet known, something yet to be found.’9 Chris Argyris, one of the leading scholars on organisational learning and organisational change, warns that some of the usual communication tools that are used to stimulate effective learning may actually be preventing learning. He says that when these tools – such as focus groups, organizational surveys, management-by-walking-around, and others – are used to tackle relatively simple problems, it may actually prevent people from getting the kind of deep information, insightful behaviour, and productive change needed to tackle more complex organisational problems. He describes learning as occurring in two forms: single-loop and double-loop. Singleloop learning asks a one-dimensional question to elicit a one-dimensional answer. Double-loop learning takes an additional step or, more often than not, several additional steps. It turns the question back on the questioner. In other words, double-loop learning asks questions not only about objective facts but also about the reasons and motives behind those facts.10

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 5

Box 1: Learning trends Here are some key trends that business and work experts think will have an impact in the near future. How do you think they will reshape your world and that of your organization? 1. As government becomes customer focused, it will become extremely important to learn ways to get feedback directly from customers served, not only on past performance but for future needs. 2. Learning how to learn will affect what people learn, how they will learn it, and how they will apply it. Challenging assumptions, values, and how work gets done results in very different learning approaches than ‘information dump’ and passive learning methods. 3. Career paths are focused outward rather than upward. Employees take responsibility for their own learning in order to leverage themselves in an environment when downsizing and flattening restrict upward mobility. 4. The training trend that is expected to have the biggest effect on the organization is just-in-time training, or training accessible to the employee at the very moment it is needed to do the job. Sources:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Osborne, D. and Plastrik, P. 1997. Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Argyris,C. 1993 On Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Bridges, W. 1994. Job Shift: How to Prosper in a Workplace Without Jobs. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley Rhinesmith, S.H. 1994. ASTD’s Agenda for the Future Training and Development

From: Human Resource Development Council 1997. Getting results through learning. Washington: Human Resource Development Council Available at: http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/pubs/handbk2/hrdhdbk.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003)

Why is learning important? Learning is at the heart of an organisation’s ability to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.11 Recent data show that learning in the workplace is the single most important contribution to improving productivity.12 For example, Shell Oil managed the 1986 oil crisis far better than other oil companies because of its learning practices in building scenarios and strategic planning.13 The Learning Declaration Group – a group of UK-based practitioners who have been researching and writing on effective learning for many years – recently put together key reasons why learning is important for society as a whole, for organisations and for individuals.14 These include:

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 6

• • • • • • •

Learning reinforces the informed, conscious and discriminating choices that underpin democracy, encourages a valuing of diversity and helps people become active citizens in a constantly changing world Learning is the only source of sustainable development Regular and rigorous use of learning processes increases everyone’s capacity to contribute to the success of organisations by challenging, reshaping and meeting its goals Learning from and with all stakeholders enhances and helps clarify purpose, vision, values and behaviour A focus on learning, planned and unplanned, produces a wide range of solutions to organisational issues and, when shared, reduces the likelihood of repeated mistakes Learning is the key to developing your identity and potential and the capacity to learn is an asset that never becomes obsolete Learning increases the range of our options and expands the horizons of who we are and what we can become.

How do people learn? People learn in a variety of different ways and learning content and processes need to be developed to reflect and cater for those differences. One size does not fit all. There are usually three models of learning described in the literature – acquisitive, constructivist and experiential. The acquisitive model describes a process of acquiring knowledge and skills, to add to existing knowledge in order to achieve a goal. This model emphasises the achievement of desired outputs, with little attention to the role of the learner. The constructivist model explores the process of developing one’s existing structure of knowledge. Its primary focus is on learning as changing one’s understanding and is seen as a product of the relationship between what the learner already knows and can do, what the learner thinks the topic is about and what it will take to learn it, and what the trainers, teachers or facilitators do, the learning tasks they set and how these are interpreted by the learners. The experiential model sees learning as a process – one through which any experience is transformed and where learning is seen as the production of knowledge through the reflection upon and transformation of experience. 15 There is considerable support for the use of the experiential model as the most effective approach to use with adult learners. David Kolb has developed the most established model of experiential learning.16 In his model the process begins with having an experience (‘concrete experience’), which is followed by reflecting upon or reviewing the experience (‘reflective observation’). Conclusions or learning from the experience are then assimilated into a set of concepts or hypotheses about how to move forward (‘abstract analysis’) and finally these new (or reformulated) hypotheses are tested in new situations (‘active experimentation’). The

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 7

model is a recurring cycle within which the learner tests new concepts and modifies them as a result of the reflection and conceptualisation. The reflection is important. This is the process through which we become aware of what we are thinking and able to change and adapt our ideas and understandings to take into account new learning. Without the reflection, experience simply happens and learning does not occur. Saul Alinsky, a community organiser, says that people generally react to life as ‘a series of happenings which pass through their systems undigested’. He says that ‘happenings become experiences when they are digested, when they are reflected on, related to general patterns and synthesised’.17 Reg Revans, who developed the theory of action learning, is convinced that learning comes from practice, from action, from experience. He says: ‘When doctors listen to nurses, patients recover more quickly; if mining engineers pay more attention to their men than to their machinery, the pits are more efficient. As in athletics and nuclear research, it is neither books nor seminars from which managers learn much, but from here-and-now exchanges about the operational job in hand’.18 Taina Savolainen is one of Finland’s foremost experts in quality management. She stresses the importance of drawing on what is already known and using creative approaches to explore how to get the most out of that. ‘Our need to draw on what we already know highlights the importance of experiential learning techniques and forms together with creative leaning which encourages innovation, fostering the emergence of new knowledge, new ideas and new applications’.19 The International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) uses a training approach that is based on experiential learning theory and is participatory by design. Participatory methods keep learners active in the learning process. The experiential model helps people assume responsibility for their own learning because it asks them to reflect on their experience, draw conclusions, and identify applications. Participants ground the lessons in their actual work environment by considering the question of what can or should be done differently as a result of this training experience.20 Recently there has been a shift in understanding about learning, ‘a shift from viewing learning as being abrupt facts to learning as a more multi-faceted and dynamic process’. This suggests that ‘our understanding of how we learn has begun to catch up with what happens in practice’.21 A great deal of our most powerful learning occurs through face-to-face encounters. Box 2 illustrates the way a dynamic workshop can stimulate the creation and sharing of learning and some of the lessons that make a workshop dynamic.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 8

Box 2: Producing and sharing learning through a dynamic workshop In 2002, the Tanzanian Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) and the Dutch-based International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) coorganised a workshop on ‘e-content for e-development: supporting local knowledge creation and exchange in developing countries’. The workshop brought together 40 people representing more than 500 years of experience from a range of different disciplines and sectors: health, education, development, agriculture, environment, and media. From the initial introductions it was difficult to see ways in which the participants would be able to interact effectively. However, over the next two days, the workshop became a hive of creative energy and ideas. A simple analytical framework emerged from the workshop that helped to map and locate efforts. By the end of the workshop, no-one wanted to leave. There was such a buzz of creativity, energy, and a sense of achievement, learning, engagement, of being involved and participating in the reflection on a wealth of experience and in the generation of new insights. It was a very powerful process. Some reasons why this worked so well are: • diversity of the participants – looking at an issue from a variety of perspectives helped to shed new light on the issue • focus on a clearly defined output – the workshop was designed to inform the development of a specific report • participatory process – lots of expertise, but no experts telling the rest of the people what to do; drawing on the experience of the group and letting new ideas emerge • non-competitive – an ethos was established of everyone working together towards a common objective, rather than defending a position, protecting territory or staking a claim (this did not completely disappear, but there was very little of it) • evolution of new language – because of the diversity (of sectors, skills, cultures, languages) the workshop had to clarify definitions and move away from the usual jargon, to identify new terms that participants felt expressed real meaning • communication – as a result, people listened, responded, learned and really worked at communicating, really worked at making sure that understanding was growing • facilitation – light, but gently nudging towards the overall objective, keeping the participants on track • short, focused presentations of cases, that stressed the learning rather than simply described the activity • reflection moments – at the end of each day and sessions through the workshop to check progress • opportunity for horizontal and informal communication – there was plenty of time for people to meet informally (during breaks, at the end of each day) to discuss issues, build relationships, explore ways of working together, and share experience. Participants have stayed in touch (via e-mail) after the workshop and a discussion list has been set up to act as a sounding board and a potential community of practice. Source: Chetley, A. 2002. Trip report: Kenya, Tanzania 3-15 March 2002. London: Exchange; for more information about the contents of the discussion at the workshop and the case studies that emerged, see: http://www.iicd.org/ks/

How do organisations learn?

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 9

Increasingly, organisations in business, the voluntary sector, and the public sector are in agreement that sharing information and learning to increase the knowledge of staff at all levels is ‘a strategic necessity’.22 But how best to do it? That is a question that defies consensus. And in many ways, it is good that there is no consensus, because there is no single formula for sharing learning. There is also a shortage of what is traditionally considered as ‘evidence’ for how learning takes place in the workplace and what can be done to enhance learning processes.23 Because of the nature of learning and the way that people learn, it is very difficult to ‘prove’ that any particular approach or intervention will lead to a pre-determined desired learning outcome.24 This paper explores the thinking behind a range of approaches that have been tried by organisations in different parts of the world and working in different sectors. Three stages can be described in the learning process: 1. individuals and teams or groups within an organisation are enabled, encouraged and supported in their learning activities – individual or group learning 2. this learning is ‘socialised’ and ‘institutionalised’ – shared, collected, organised and ‘owned’ by the organisation – organisational learning 3. learning is at the heart of the organisation and is central to all of its functions and processes and is used to transform and develop the organisation – a learning organisation. One researcher has suggested that there are two possible further stages – patterned on the way the human mind is thought to develop – the wise organisation and the enlightened organisation.25 As some organisations are still struggling with issues of individual or group learning, many are trying to find ways to develop organisational learning and a few brave ones are striving to become learning organisations, the concepts of wise or enlightened organisations are today only distant images of possibility. However, Peter Senge’s definition of a learning organisation – one that is ‘continually expanding its capacity to create its future’ – does contain the seeds for such a distant possibility to perhaps evolve. Meanwhile, there is more than enough work to be done on striving to measure up to the characteristics of a ‘learning organisation’. A key characteristic of a ‘learning organisation’ is that it facilitates the learning of all its members and transforms itself in order to meet its strategic goals. Transformation is key since one cannot learn without changing nor change without learning. Thus, to be a learning organisation one must be continuously transformed.26 The British Overseas NGOs in Development (BOND) describes the development of a learning organisation as ‘an ongoing, systemic process rather than a single product. It is about building sustainable processes of individual and collective development in the workplace as a means of increasing organisational capacity and effectiveness.’27 Two essential factors in the development of a learning organisation are trust and the recognition of the subtlety and complexity of human relationships.28 That also means that Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 10

effective learning organisations share knowledge and contain systems and processes for sharing knowledge and information.29 How do people and organisations share learning? Nancy Dixon identifies five types of knowledge and learning sharing.30 She describes these as: • Serial transfer – where one team or group of people learns from experience of doing a task, captures the learning and uses it to improve practice the next time it does the same task in a different setting • Near transfer – transferring explicit knowledge and learning from one team with experience of doing a frequent and repeated task to another team that is doing the same task in a similar context, but in a different location • Far transfer – involves the transfer from one team to another of tacit knowledge about specific non-routine tasks • Strategic transfer – involves transferring very complex knowledge – handling a merger, for example • Expert transfer – involves transferring expert knowledge about a specific task that might be done infrequently – answering the ‘how do I do this?’ question. This typology highlights the differences between explicit and tacit knowledge and the different processes that are most effective in sharing them. Knowledge is usually defined, interpreted or understood as explicit – having already been processed, documented, captured and stored somewhere; a product capable of being managed. Knowledge can be described as ‘information combined with experience, context, interpretation and reflection’31 Larry Prusak, the Director of IBM’s Knowledge Management Institute has a more straightforward definition: ‘what people know … period’32 His definition pays particular attention to ‘tacit’ knowledge – the knowledge in a person’s head, experiences and rules of thumb.33 Tacit knowledge is particularly important in tactical and strategic decision making.34 In a similar vein, the Panos Institute identifies the importance of people in the transformation of information into knowledge by describing knowledge as ‘the sense that people make of information’.35 Explicit knowledge can be communicated more easily. It can be put into words, pictures, sounds. Technology can be used to store and communicate it. Tacit knowledge is harder to put into words or symbols: try describing the process of riding a bicycle. It is physical, emotional, and intellectual knowledge working together. To get it, you have to observe, try out, reflect, try again. If knowledge is tacit, people acting and interacting are key.36 Each type of knowledge demands a different strategy to enable effective learning and use. There is no single system for capturing and sharing learning. Some forms of learning can be stored and shared using a database, some can be communicated using paper or electronic methods, some can best be shared using face-to-face methods.37 The next section of the report looks at a number of different approaches to improve learning and the sharing of learning. These include: • approaches to create an enabling environment and to value learning Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 11

• •

the role and use of technology specific techniques and methodologies.

Developing enabling environments for learning The importance of a supportive learning environment is highlighted in a study about a training programme to support health workers on how to break bad news in a paediatric setting (see Box 3).38 Box 3: A safe space to practice caring One of the most beneficial aspects of a set of workshops to support health workers on how to break bad news in a paediatric setting was the sharing of personal and collective experiences. Participants noted that in their daily work, they had little time and opportunity to share their thoughts and feelings. Use of realistic role-plays or scenarios to explore in a safe and supportive way not only demonstrates how to break bad news but what it feels like to either give or receive bad news. This was identified by participants in the workshops as a strong positive factor in the learning process. So too was the opportunity to have constructive feedback from peers about how each of the health workers performed. This helped to surface ‘an essence of caring’ which is a positive factor in effective news disclosure. Source: Farrell, M., Ryan, S. and Langrick, B. 2001. ‘Breaking bad news’ within a paediatric setting: an evaluation report of a collaborative education workshop to support health professionals. Journal of Advanced Nursing 36:6 765-775

A learning culture is one where learning is valued and rewarded (see Box 00) and elements that impede learning are not tolerated. Achieving this takes a shift in thinking and action, in part because the impediments to learning at work are so ingrained in people’s assumptions about what work is and is not. There are many management beliefs that do not perceive learning as productive work, so that activities such as reading journals or sharing work-based stories in the cafeteria are not considered ‘real’ work.39 At the oil giant, BP, sharing learning is part of the culture. With more than 100,000 staff the potential for sharing learning and knowledge is enormous. Transforming ‘personal’ or individual know-how into ‘organisational’ or collective memory is a challenge that faces all large (and small) organisations. BP uses a range of techniques and technologies, but at the heart of BP’s ability to learn as an organisation is an individual commitment to learning before, during and after every activity (see Box 5). Box 4: Measure what counts It is human nature to work to what is being measured. It you want to encourage learning and the sharing of learning, measuring how well this is being done needs to be part of performance monitoring. The World Bank announced several years ago that it wanted to be principally a ‘knowledge bank’ and more recently has refined this to being a ‘knowledge sharing’ organisation. As a result, three of the four main behavioural

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 12

competencies on its performance management system are enablers for sustaining a knowledge-based organisation. These include: • client orientation • teamwork • learning and knowledge sharing. Source: Egan, M. 2003. Creating a knowledge bank. Strategic HR Review 2:2 30-34 available at: http://www.worldbank.org/ks/documents/hr.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003)

Box 5: Creating a sharing culture: the experience of BP BP sees the real key to its success in sharing knowledge and learning not the technology it uses, but the way it organises and the behaviours that people working in the company exhibit. Experience has demonstrated to BP that although a federation of largely autonomous business units is good for maximising financial performance, it is not good for sharing learning and knowledge throughout the company. To do that, BP has created a set of ‘Peer Processes’. Peer Groups share know how among senior group managers to shape planning and resource allocation decisions. Peer Reviews expose specific business activities to the challenge and scrutiny of senior professionals and leaders from similar business activities throughout the company. Peer Assists are used by professional specialists within the company prior to action to capture the previous experiences of others. It also makes use of a technique called After Action Review (borrowed from the US Army) after any activity to capture the differences between what was expected to happen and what actually happened and to identify specific actionable recommendations for any similar future activities. Throughout these processes, all staff members are encouraged to join lateral networks throughout the company, where they belong to communities with similar interests. This creates a culture where people feel comfortable asking and offering help. The Chief Executive Officer of BP, John Browne, says that it is important to ensure that learning is spread throughout the organisation, ‘so that each unit is not learning in isolation and reinventing the wheel again and again. Our challenge has been getting people to systematically capture the information the company needs to be able to use both the explicit and implicit [tacit] knowledge repeatedly. In the case of explicit knowledge, that means recording the actual data. In the case of implicit knowledge, it means keeping a record of the people who have the know-how to solve a problem so that others can find them when the need arises. The trouble is that both tasks are boring. So we’ve got to figure out how to make them exciting and enjoyable. We’ve made progress, but we have a long way to go.’

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 13

From: John Browne’s comments – Prokesch, S. 1997. Unleashing the Power of Learning: an interview with British Petroleum’s John Browne. Harvard Business Review 75:5 147-168; information about BP: BP. n.d. Using what we know. Available at: http://www.bp.com/company_overview/profile/what_we_know.asp and Company information strategy http://www.bp.com/faqs/faqs_answer.asp?id=152 (accessed on 25 Feb 2003).

Unstructured face-to-face interaction is important for meaningful knowledge and learning exchange. For example, one Japanese company requires employees to spend 20 minutes each day in a lounge discussing the day's events and learning with other employees. As a way of encouraging new knowledge exchange and generation, traditional business meetings are not permitted in this room. What appears to be crucial for success of learning is that social bonds of communication and trust be built first face-to-face, which can then be supplemented with virtual exchanges in which nuances of electronic communication can be more accurately interpreted. 40 This is also the experience of the Northern and Yorkshire Learning Alliance in the UK, where the power of the caring impulse is one that is likely to stir and support learning and the sharing of learning within the NHS as Box 6 shows. Box 6: Informal learning in the NHS Networks, based upon informal relationships, have ensured that care was delivered to patients for many years. This informal organisation of care, based upon personal relationships, ensures that where the bureaucratic organisation fails the patient, health professionals' work together to network the resources the patient needs. Networks are not new. Formalising networks and recognising their potential to deliver seamless care is new. The NHS must ensure that networks are developed, allowing them freedom from bureaucracy to reach their potential. The Northern and Yorkshire Learning Alliance (NYLA) was established as part of the Northern and Yorkshire health community's efforts to radically improve care. The NYLA operates as a network with a small team of change experts working to develop change management and service improvement capacity across 10,000 square miles. As a network based organisation the team has learned many lessons, which may inform the development of clinical networks in England. Among the lessons is that the best way to try to build collaborative working among teams is in a face to face way. However, for people who do not work in the same organisation or during the same working shifts, this poses difficulties. Once a relationship exists, other types of collaborative efforts – such as video conferencing or telephone conferencing can be used as well as digital shared workspaces and e-mail. Source: Conner, M. 2001. Developing network-based services in the NHS. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 14:6 237-244; Conner, M. 2002. Supporting NHS teams with digital collaborative technology. Available at: http://www.nyx.org.uk/learningalliance/pdf/digital_collaborative.pdf (accessed 23 Mar 2003)

Two consultants from McKinsey and Company advise that ‘knowledge-based strategies must not focus on collecting and disseminating information but rather on creating a mechanism for practitioners to reach out to other practitioners.’41

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 14

Use of technology to share learning Much emphasis has been given to technology and tools to manage knowledge and share learning. Some people believe that human experience and expertise can be completely captured in terms of data and that these data can be transmitted anywhere in the world to a complete novice so that a novice can perform just like an expert. Or, in another version, a huge organisation can capture all relevant information at the periphery, transmit it to a central point where globally optimised decisions can be made, and the orders to implement these decisions can be transmitted back out to the periphery. These ideas are based on a decontextualised and ‘objective’ view of knowledge. More recently, a number of thinkers in widely varying disciplines see knowledge as existing as a web of relationships and argue that a possibility now exists for reintegrating society, for reintegrating learning and life, for re-establishing older methods of communicating such as storytelling, for fostering the collaborative creation of knowledge by communities. Such views do not reject technology or new media, but seek to use new media in ways to enhance and perhaps even regain some human values.42 Knowledge management is about encouraging individuals to communicate their knowledge by creating environments and systems for capturing, organising, and sharing knowledge throughout an organisation.43 Increasingly, thinking is moving towards the concept of sharing knowledge rather than simply storing and managing it. Box 7 explores how two organisations using a soap opera format on television to communicate about social and health issues in countries as different as South Africa and Nicaragua used e-mail to share both practical learning and the more tacit sense that it was possible to do this type of work. For the Nicaraguan organisation, Puntos de Encuentro, the communication meant that its initial ideas were confirmed, confidence grew and the programmes began to be developed. For the South African organisation, Soul City, there was a later recognition that its experience was useful for others and could be shared and transferred. Box 7: Sharing learning: the experience of Soul City (South Africa) and Puntos de Encuentro (Nicaragua) Soul City is a dynamic and innovative multi-media health project. Through drama and entertainment Soul City reaches more than 12 million South Africans and many other people in the Southern African region. Soul City makes information popular and accessible. It examines many different health issues, and empowers learners to make healthy choices, both as individuals and as communities. Puntos de Encuentro is a feminist organisation involved in multi-media work addressing gender, power and violence. It combines a popular teen ‘soap opera’ dealing with issues of sexual and reproductive well-being, gender and violence, shown on prime time television, a feminist magazine that has the biggest circulation of any magazine in Nicaragua, and youth training camps to train facilitators on gender and power. In 2001, staff from both organisations (Amy Bank (AB) and Ana Criquillon (AC) from Puntos and Sue Goldstein (SG) from Soul City) were asked about how they shared experiences and learning.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 15

AB: It must have been about two years ago, way before we were on the air, and when we were still struggling to write a first script and get some money, I saw a very small thing somewhere, a one paragraph blurb, that talked about a TV thing in South Africa. I thought, oh my God, here's somebody doing the same thing we're trying to do but they're already doing it! At the time, I was so busy that I didn't even write. I remember saving the message so that I would have the email address. I kept seeing it every week and I had it on my list every week to write to Soul City to find out who they were and what was going on. It's like any of these social issues we deal with, just knowing somebody else is out there doing it was an inspiration. When I say Soul City was really inspiring it's because I thought: ‘this looks like us’ - an independent organisation that's doing its thing. That means that it can be done because we thought for a long time that we were really being way too ambitious or too audacious or too something and that the reason it was taking us so long to get it off the ground was because we were in fact nuts and that it really wasn't possible. We knew there was a difference between South Africa and Nicaragua but we said, Okay it can be done. And they're thinking about it in the same way, which means we can't be too far off. Back to our learning more about Soul City, there was some correspondence between one of our researchers and Soul City. There were just a couple of messages back and forth, but I swear to God, just knowing Soul City was out there and that we had soul mates somewhere else was very comforting. AC: It was also useful to set up the evaluation. We used a lot of information that we got from you to design our evaluation in the first stage so it was quite useful. The first moment was just to know you and not feel so alone but after that it was more practical and now we're hoping to actually learn many more things from you. SG: This is interesting for us to hear because for us there were a few emails and a number of questions asked about the evaluation but we really didn't think a lot about the communication. Source: Morry, C. 2001. Interview with Amy Bank and Ana Criquillion of Fundacion Puntos de Encuentro and Sue Goldstein and Esca Scheepers of Soul City. Available at: http://www.comminit.com/int2002/sld-6512.html (accessed on 25 Feb 2003) Further information about Soul City is available from: http://www.soulcity.org.za and about Puntos from: http://www.comminit.com/pds-08-17-00/sld-48.html

The three examples in Box 8 highlight the importance of any database of ‘lessons learned’ being linked to ongoing activities and joint working for it to be sustainable, relevant and used. It is important not to see the database as a repository of static information, but rather as a tool for encouraging and supplementing networking and dialogue. A database is no magic bullet. Box 8: The ‘dreaded database’ - a cautionary note about databases of lessons learned Bellanet experience

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 16

In the late 1990s Bellanet developed a database of ‘lessons learned’ to capture the learning in its projects that use Information Communication Technologies to facilitate dialogue for development organisations. A range of ‘carrots and sticks’ were used to encourage input into the database but once lessons were entered onto the database, it was never really used. Internally, the database came to be known as ‘that dreaded database’. Bellanet has had greater success with knowledge management approaches, such as after action reviews, that can build on face-to-face interactions and access tacit knowledge. Development Assistance Committee (OECD) working party on aid - Evaluation Reports Inventory Reviewing the approach to evaluation of the major bilateral and multi-lateral aid donors in 2000, the Evaluation Feedback for Effective Learning and Accountability (EFELA) report noted the problem of under-use for this database of evaluation abstracts. The ‘Evaluation Reports Inventory’ was originally set up in 1988 to make publicly available abstracts from slightly over 5000 evaluation reports, but although many donors reported that they found it useful, only five actually reported using the database regularly. Experience showed both the potential and also demands of using the Internet to share information in this way, with the following difficulties listed in the report: • having to depend on inputs from a whole range of donors, some of whom are much more diligent than others in keeping their contributions up to date • differences in cataloguing and indexing approaches among agencies • conflicting priorities between making documents public and maintaining a ‘private’ area where agencies can exchange information on a more confidential basis • the amount of older information on the site, and the perceived lack of up-to-date materials • not being able to provide direct links through to original source materials, which limits the functionality to users • developing a search interface that is powerful but also user friendly. Advances in technology and subsequent changes to the inventory have seen solutions to some of these issues (see: http://www.dac-evaluations-cad.org/abstracts_e.htm ), but they highlight important concerns for any database that is set up to share lessons across large networks or organisations. Exchange ‘Mapping’ Database – work in progress Exchange is currently developing a ‘mapping’ database of who is doing what and where in health communication, and the ways people are documenting and sharing their lessons learned. Information about these lessons is being collected through questionnaires and interviews. The ‘mapping’ exercise has taken a lot longer than anticipated and has involved regular review and change of tactics to engage organisations. Key lessons from the process so far include:

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 17

•

•

• • • • •

the database is best viewed as a networking tool not as a repository of exhaustive and validated information – it cannot substitute for dialogue, only stimulate and supplement it (by highlighting interesting areas of work and enticing people to develop a dialogue with organisations they find interesting) the promise and potential of a database does not overcome the problem of lack of time for organisations to document and share activities (small ‘seed grants’ to fund the time needed to document the lessons from project work may be appropriate for smaller organisations) building the database around joint working and activities leads to more relevance and usefulness questionnaires rarely supply the depth and richness of information about ‘learning’ – especially tacit knowledge (phone and face-to-face interviews are needed, or even better, joint working) organisations asked to contribute lessons are more likely to respond to partially complete profiles of their work than a blank questionnaire (some external research and synthesis work required for this) collating and inputting the information centrally takes an enormous amount of time. A decentralised inputting and updating process is vital for sustainability the usefulness of the information for a database user is proportional to the quality of the synthesis, analysis and editing that goes into the quality control of the database, in addition to good design – time again.

Sources: Morrow, K. 2002. A review of different learning approaches of Bellanet in: ECDPM 2003. Summary Record Of Workshop: How can we learn more from what we do? Evaluation and evidence-based communications for development Maastricht 12-13 December 2002. Maastricht: ECDPM available at: http://www.healthcomms.org/Learning%20from%20Practice/index.html (accessed 31 March 2003); Barnard, G. and Cameron, C. 2000. EFELA: Evaluation for effective learning and accountability – Background synthesis report in: OECD 2000. Evaluation Feedback for Effective Learning and Accountability. Paris: OECD available at: http://www1.oecd.org/dac/htm/pubs/p_eval.htm (accessed 23 Mar 2003); mapping: http://www.healthcomms.org/networking/index.html

IBM’s Larry Prusak reminds us that ‘Technology can’t communicate passion and emotion well … but technology combined with face-to-face story-telling can amplify knowledge.’44 Techniques and methodologies for sharing learning There is no absolute right or wrong approach to use for sharing learning, either within an organisation or among organisations. Some of the practices that have been found to work in particular settings include: • creating the time and space for learning and institutionalising it • developing multi-sectoral teams (within an organisation) • supporting or stimulating the development of communities of practice (within an organisation or across organisations) • using storytelling as a vehicle for communicating significant learning • making use of video to document and share learning and to appreciate what is important • using conversations, dialogue and engagement to interact with and share learning with a wide range of stakeholders.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 18

Creating time and space In South Afirca, the Community Development Resource Association (CDRA), grapples with time issues simply to ensure that sufficient learning is shared within its own organisation. CDRA bravely describes itself as a learning organisation. It backs up that claim with a substantial investment in learning, as outlined in the case study in Box 9. As Sue Soal from CDRA notes: ‘the very complex nature of a developmental practice requires substantial commitment to learning from practice that is regular, resourced and planned. Each organisation must plan its own learning rhythms to be in tune with its working rhythms, and the content and nature of its learning spaces to suit the unique nature of its work. It may take time to find the appropriate space and time but if done right, it can be an investment in quality that more than compensates for the time spent and can immeasurably enrich the working lives of those involved.’45 Box 9: CDRA - Making the learning organisation literal The Community Development Resource Association (CDRA) is a South Africa-based non-governmental organisation (NGO) that focuses on building the capacity of organisations and individuals engaged in development for social transformation. CDRA has an intensive approach to sharing learning through a monthly ‘homeweek’ process. As a consultancy organisation, with field staff constantly in and out of the office, it was difficult to build an organisational practice if time was not allocated to it. The natural rhythm of the work suggested that it would usually be possible every four to six weeks to have everyone in the office at the same time for about a week. Thus the term ‘homeweek’ evolved. CDRA staff see the homeweek as an ‘organisational time-out, an investment in learning’. – a time when they consciously disengage from the field to involve themselves in reflection on practice and other internal maintenance, strategic and development processes. The homeweeks cover a number of elements, although not all of them occur each time. These include: • Organisational learning from practice based on reflective reports, creative sessions, case studies, product development (tools and methods), a seminar or presentation • Strategy, strategic review and organisational development processes based on ongoing strategy meetings, and occasional in-depth sessions • Business arrangements and planning sessions • Management and development of individual practice including supervision/peer mentoring, individual consultation with colleagues and open time in which correspondence can be completed and contracts written. CDRA says the homeweeks have helped to: • develop practice and approach • maintain relationships • encourage peer accountability • improve productivity and quality.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 19

A key lesson is that collective learning, characterised as it is by in-depth peer supervision, requires high levels of trust. This is best built when groups of people work together on a common task over a sustained period of time. The space and form provided by the homeweek allows for this. CDRA says the homeweeks require: • Vision, patience, commitment – Vision is required, to create a clear picture of the kinds of creative learning processes that would most benefit the organisation. Patience, to give it the time needed to get up and running. Commitment, to get through some of the false starts and disappointing experiments that are a necessary part of building such a space. • Appropriate rhythm – every organisation has its own rhythms. Usually, the administrative, funding or financial rhythms determine the timing of events. However the rhythm for learning spaces may need to be determined separately to ensure that it supports ongoing work. • Space and time: commitment and discipline - Where space and time is made absolutely non-negotiable, and the commitment and discipline to use it is found, these spaces become filled with learning that is unique to the organisation and relevant to its mission. • Good relationships: collegial accountability - creation of these spaces cannot be the little ‘projects’ of isolated individuals. An organisational commitment to come together and learn, to build the practice and so the organisation, must be upheld by all. To achieve this requires good relationships and a sense of mutual accountability. • Holding – giving the job of holding these spaces to one person as a part responsibility ensures the planning and design for each homeweek happens and is followed up. Source: Soal, S. 2001. Making the learning organisation literal – CDRA’s Homeweek. Available at: http://www.cdra.org.za (accessed 23 Feb 2003)

Developing teams Developing effective teams is one way of encouraging learning, but simply having a team is not enough. Too often teams are set out to get a piece of work done and the learning that emerges is not valued, captured or reflected upon. The main reason for establishing work teams should not simply to be to get the job done, but to stimulate learning, according to Dr Roberta Hill and her research team in New Zealand.46 (See Box 00 for lessons drawn from learning approaches used in five different types of organisations in New Zealand.) Box 10: Sharing learning: 11 key practices from New Zealand Case studies of five (very different) organisations in New Zealand helped to identify the core skills that people need in organisations in order to learn and share learning. The organisations included a charitable trust working with Maori populations, a small computer consultancy company, a medium-sized manufacturing company making kitchen appliances, a medium-sized frozen food plan, and a large telecommunications company.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 20

A key point that emerges is that the more complex and uncertain the environment, the more likely is the need for continuous innovation, learning and improvement. Rather than following fixed rules and procedures, employees and managers need to deal with the unknown or the unexpected. This involves being able to manage knowledge and relationships across boundaries and to learn by collectively reflecting through a process of collaborative inquiry based on ‘double loop learning’. In all situations, the case studies highlighted eleven key practices that can facilitate sharing of learning. These are: • multi-skilling and cross-training – ensuring that individuals are flexible enough to be able to take on a range of activities and that they understand the occupational and professional concerns of others to be able to participate meaningfully in team discussions • unrestricted sharing and distribution of information and knowledge in team settings • reward systems that encourage learning • flexible learning systems – using both prepared programmes and the capacity to facilitate flexible, responsive and dynamic learning processes to meet unforeseen learning demands • continuous learning processes – that encourage people to strive towards continuous development, rather than the traditional educational goal of achieving a specified goal such as a qualification and then cease to progress learning behaviours • balancing operational imperatives and flexible learning – ensuring that the demands of the deadline or the production process, do not impact adversely on the flexibility needed for continuous learning and also that the learning processes do not unreasonably disrupt production • stimulating self-respect among people to encourage positive responses to new learning opportunities • ensuring that nationally-agreed competency standards are not so rigid that they prevent the development of flexible learning environments • distributing authority – people learn effectively only when they can relate the learning they are doing directly to an activity whose role and purpose is directly relevant to them. In order to innovate, deal with problems and continuously learn, people need to have some immediate and direct control over the activities in which they are involved • establishing effective teams as learning units – the development potential of working in groups is greater than that of individuals working alone, provided team design and management encourages learning • distributing leadership and expertise – leadership needs to be recognised as a function that is performed by different people at different times, rather than as a role vested in an individual. Traditional management and social systems militate against such an approach and need to be actively challenged to encourage the sharing of power, information and learning. Source: Hill, R., Bullard, T. et al. 1998. Learning about learning organisations: case studies of skill formation in five New Zealand organisations. The Learning Organization: An International Journal 5:4 184-192 Available at: http://www.webresearch.co.nz/Public/Publications/LearningAboutLOs.pdf (accessed on 26 Feb 2003)

Ultimately the success of teams rests with the building of a common language and trust within the teams - successful teams can anticipate the actions of fellow members and

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 21

collectively act in a spontaneous manner. However, the organisational structures that support team learning and shared learning within teams must be established.47 Box 11 highlights the way the World Bank develops multi-disciplinary teams to encourage shared learning. Box 11: Sharing learning: ‘the way we do things’ The World Bank tries to integrate knowledge and learning sharing processes into all the work that is done, to make a part of ‘the way we do things’. One way of doing this is to use a Multi-Sectoral Team Learning (MTL) approach. These multi-disciplinary teams bring together staff from many different specialisations around the resolution of a single issue in a particular area. The process in the past has been inefficient, as different specialists would tackle the issue in a sequential manner – each following the other to do their part of the project. With MTL, a group of specialists work as a team on a project in a holistic and integrated way. MTLs are supported by a learning coach who helps the teams on process (what team working means; group dynamics) and substance (how to manage the learning and knowledge content coming from the team). With more than 60 MTLs in operation across the Bank, teams are better integrated around sectors and demonstrate improved communications. Their approach has improved the overall achievements of project goals. Source: Egan, M. 2003. Creating a knowledge bank. Strategic HR Review 2:2 30-34 available at: http://www.worldbank.org/ks/documents/hr.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003)

Communities of practice Communities of practice are increasingly being seen as a strong tool in the development of organisational learning and in the sharing of learning within an organisation and across its boundaries. What is a community or practice? What does it look like? Arian Ward of Work Frontiers International highlights several key characteristics of successful communities of practice.48 He says people in a community of practice share: • common purpose – that can be on a continuum from a short-term and very practical purpose to a long-term desired goal • common cultural context – this may be a work culture or a social culture • co-location – this may be either physical or virtual, although a balance of each is usually preferable • common timeframe – the more this is real-time (simultaneous) the more likely a cohesive community will evolve • voluntary participation – this is reciprocal: the community chooses who will participate and the individual members choose whether they want to participate • multiple, shifting and overlapping membership and participation – people are likely to be in involved in a number of communities and change their levels of involvement in all of them at different times. Communities of practice come in many different shapes and sizes. They tend to focus on one or more of the following types of activity: • peer-to-peer help in problem solving

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 22

• • •

developing and verifying good practices upgrading and distributing knowledge in daily use fostering unexpected ideas and innovation.49

Ward and many other commentators make the point that communities of practice in themselves are neither inherently good or bad. They can either be a powerful and valuable tool for sharing learning, generating innovation and creating knowledge, or they can be strong and stubborn obstacles to such sharing. How they function has a lot to do with how they are shaped and cultivated. Ward says that experience shows that trying to dominate or control such communities with traditional management approaches does not work. ‘Like a garden, these communities must be tended and nurtured rather than commanded and controlled.’ The critical point about a community of practice is that it involves practice. The learning comes from doing, from reflecting on the doing, from sharing and comparing those reflections and designing new and better ways to do things. (See Box 12 on how an informal community of practice at Xerox helped to solve a problem that official teams had not been able to crack.) Box 12: Doing the impossible by sharing learning at Xerox At Xerox, the goal of developing reusable software code seemed unattainable - until a group of young engineers, working outside official channels, organised themselves under the banner of the Toolkit Working Group. These engineers were not an official task force. They were a ‘community of practice’ an informal band of colleagues held together by friendships and loyalties forged during their intense collaboration on writing software for the company's 5090 copier line. When the 5090 hit the market, it was time for this group to disband and work on new products, which meant reinventing much of the code they had already written. But they had a different agenda - and decided to act on it. Beginning with virtually no official sanction, and while still meeting new product obligations, the group pursued its reusable software vision - and managed to do in three years what official task forces and project teams had not done in five. Source: Brown, J.S. and Gray, E.S. 1995. The people are the company: how to build your company around your people. Fast Company. (November). Available at: http://www.fastcompany.com/online/01/people.html (accessed 17 Mar 2003)

In pioneering a range of electronic tools to support ongoing dialogue among development communities and nurture communities of practice, Bellanet highlights the network of people who are the ‘repositories’ of knowledge, not documents or websites (see Box 13).

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 23

Box 13: Using electronic communication to support communities of practice Bellanet (http://www.bellanet.org/) is an initiative to help the international development community work together more effectively through the use of information and communication technologies – in particular web and email based tools for group dialogues and efforts toward the sharing of information. While Bellanet provides technical support, it emphasises the importance of ‘solid facilitation of ongoing interactions’. It stresses that electronic communication is no substitute for face-to-face meetings, or at least should be integrated with them to keep dialogue alive. Bellanet has gained much experience in the area of knowledge management and aims to support the development of ‘communities of practice’ with their electronic tools. It begins from the premise that it is people (the community of those interacting) that are the knowledge repository, not documents or websites, and Bellanet makes it clear that the electronic tools are just that – tools, that cannot replace the need for motivated dialogue between people. D-groups (http://www.dgroups.org/) - ‘Development through Dialogue’ groups are webbased ‘workspaces’ that provide an interactive electronic platform for on-line groups and communities to share resources, email discussion, key documents, participants profiles all in one virtual ‘place’. Bellanet adapts these spaces to the needs of the range of communities they serve: some are private and closed, some are public, some are predominantly for email discussion, others hold a bank of resources and bibliographies. Examples: A workspace that illustrates the range of resources brought together is ‘LEAP Impact’ looking at Monitoring and Evaluations issues: http://www.bellanet.org/leap/impact/ ; An open Dgroup, predominantly email so far is One-World Radio AIDS Network: http://www.dgroups.org/groups/AIDSRadio/

Story telling The act of storytelling is vastly different from reading or writing about events that have happened. ‘The very telling of these stories actively participates in a creative process that is felt to be happening right now, an ongoing emergence whose periodic renewal actually requires such participation.’ 50 Stories are deeper and richer, more compelling, more memorable than non-narrative text. And they tap an ancient resource: the power of social dynamics.51 Social interaction is fundamental in managing tacit knowledge. Organisations should create and support systems that encourage staff members to discuss and interact with each other.52 ‘The emotional resonance that a story has, helps us in remembering and retrieving knowledge passed through it.’53 Cognitive science research has confirmed the importance of storytelling for memorising information. Memorable information is more likely to be acted upon. Because stories are more vivid and entertaining and often relate to personal experience rather than to rules, they are more memorable, considered more important and more likely to guide behaviour. ‘Storytelling promotes the transfer of the tacit dimension

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 24

of knowledge because it initiates the creation of shared mental models by clustering within familiar archetypes. Storytelling is the most personal way of transferring knowledge. Stories tend to attract more attention than other forms of knowledge transfer, where the intention is clearly defined. They help to launch a listener to action. Storytelling has been practised in organisations for many years but has been explicitly used only recently as a management tool.’54 An example from international development work shows how using stories of what important changes people have experienced through their work provides an evocative and concise way of capturing learning about what has and has not been effective. Box 14 explains how a process called Most Significant Change uses stories to draw out meaning. Box 14: Most Significant Change: using stories to share learning The Most Significant Change approach uses stories to develop a participatory monitoring system not based on indicators, that draws out meaning from what actually happened. By reflecting on events, the approach is able to deal with the unexpected. It also helps to identify how change happens and why, as well as changes in the character of people’s participation. The approach is participatory, since all the project stakeholders are involved in deciding the sorts of change to be recorded. All stakeholders are also asked the same questions in a systematic way, and their stories are rigorously and regularly collected. These stories are then subject to analysis, discussion and filtering, verification and documentation. The systematic collection of the contextual information framing the anecdote is key here – who said it, where, when and to whom. Stories of change at the ‘field’ level are selected for significance during meetings at a range of organisation levels to distil them to the most evocative and significant. Group discussions, votes and ranking are used to select the stories on the basis of selection criteria determined by the declared priorities of the particular project. The approach goes beyond merely capturing and documenting client stories, since each story is accompanied by the storyteller’s interpretation, and after review the stories are also accompanied by the reviewers’ interpretation. Overall the process promotes a slow but extensive dialogue up and down the project hierarchy each month. The approach has been developed by Rick Davies and Jessica Dart as a credible way of monitoring change that also promotes organisational learning. It does this without resorting the use of the standard indicators and logic planning approach, with the additional advantage of being a rewarding and enjoyable process for the participants. The Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) experience VSO recently adopted the method as a standard part of the reporting for volunteers finishing their placements. Stories were selected at country level and the programme office level, with limits placed on the number to narrow the number from roughly 500 from volunteers to around 150. A further selection by region then produced around 60 stories covering Africa and the rest of the world and, of these, around 24 went to the UK Department for International Development, the programme’s funder.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 25

The process acted as a valuable way to build dialogue and communication within the organisation, as well as provide evocative material for ‘marketing’ purposes. Despite VSO reporting to DFID in this way, it was hard to convince donors of the value of the method due to the lack of emphasis on the quantitative. VSO have reflected that the method is most valuable for learning at the ground level in projects, less so for ‘upwards’ accountability. Sources: VSO has used these stories to capture the impact of its work http://www.vso.org.uk/volunt/pdd/stories.htm; Davies, R. ‘An evolutionary approach to facilitating organisational learning: An experiment by the Christian Commission for Development in Bangladesh’ http://www.swan.ac.uk/cds/rd/ccdb.htm; See also the mailing list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MostSignificantChanges/; Dart, J. 1989. ‘A Story Approach for monitoring change in an agricultural extension project’ Available at: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/aqr/offer/papers/JDart.htm (accessed 3 March 2003)

Documenting learning in different ways The development agency, ActionAid, has recently developed an Accountability Learning and Planning System (ALPS) to increase its responsiveness to the communities with which it is working by ensuring there was a form of downward accountability (see Box 15). ALPS had a secondary aim to deal with the problems of the large amount of work involved in programme reporting, to reduce the reliance on written reports and make more of the ‘learning’ from existing work by making it easier to share. It has explored a variety of methods for feeding back on project learning that do not rely on written reporting. One such method is the use of video. Box 15: Creative ways of sharing lessons at ActionAid The Accountability Learning and Planning System (ALPS) replaced country and project reports with annual ‘participatory reviews and reflections’ with stakeholder groups. There were no fixed guidelines for these reviews, but instead an emphasis on different programmes finding what was most useful for them; methods to promote learning, record the most significant achievements, and look at what worked and why it worked. Feedback on challenges and constraints were also seen as important. Documentation of the process is still being explored, with a number of methods being tried, including a Burundi-based local newspaper, which also doubles as an assessment tool to look at the way the process is unfolding locally. Creative methods of reporting which do not rely on written documents have also been tried. One example is the use of a video by communities to monitor their own development through the participatory methods. Using video allows people who are semi-literate or non-literate to use their own oral traditions and forms of cultural expression to research their development needs and to address policy-makers. A research project is currently underway to look at use of participatory video in this way in Pakistan and Malawi. ActionAid has also used video in its reporting to trustees. The power of video as a vivid and concise way of capturing issues and ways of working has been relatively neglected in Northern settings, where the written word continues to dominate as the most ‘legitimate’ way of reporting. Despite the initial concern to deal with onerous reporting, it has been realised that such a participatory approach involves a lot of time and energy. In some ways the ‘traditional’

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 26

report written by one person is an 'easier' option; taking real learning seriously is hard work. After two years’ experience, some offices have even moved back to the ‘old’ methods of reporting. However, the principles of ALPS, which were adopted more or less across the organisation, are becoming a central reference point for work in country programmes and regions and the commitment to real participation. Sources:

Outline of ALPS: http://www.actionaid.org/resources/pdfs/alps.pdf ; Notes to accompany ALPS (around 100 pages), including a number of short case studies and examples: http://www.actionaid.org/resources/pdfs/alps_notes.pdf ;IA Exchanges (Oct 02) lessons learned from the reflection and review part of ALPS (in PDF): http://www.actionaid.org/resources/impactassessment/impact.shtml

Appreciative inquiry The use of video also features in a case study that explores the use of appreciative inquiry (see Box 16). Appreciative inquiry has been developed by David Cooperrider as an alternative to most problem-solving methodologies. He says that ‘appreciative inquiry has as its basis a metaphysical concern: it posits that social existence as such is a miracle that can never be fully comprehended.’ As a result, it takes the study of any situation beyond the superficial and towards the creative energies that are involved in any form of organisation. He sees the appreciative mode of inquiry as much more than a method or technique: rather it ‘is a way of living with, being with, and directly participating in the varieties of social organisation we are compelled to study’.55 The approach is based on an understanding that there may be multiple ways of knowing, each of them valid in its own realm when judged according to its own set of essential assumptions and purposes. In this sense there are many different ways of studying the same phenomenon, and the insights generated by one approach are, at best, partial and incomplete. According to Cooperrider, ‘Only by raising innovative questions will innovations in theory and practice be found. … Because the questions we ask largely determine what we find, we should place a premium on that which informs our curiosity and thought.’ 56 Appreciative inquiry moves away from a focus on problems towards identifying what levels of social innovation exist. How do people cope with the situations they find themselves in? Appreciative inquiry is intended for discovering, understanding, and fostering innovations in social-organizational arrangements and processes. Appreciative inquiry has four phases: • Discovery – which focuses peak moments of community excellence • Dream – where there is an opportunity to envision possible future improvements and express these as ‘provocative propositions’ • Design – where a strategy is developed to achieve the provocative propositions • Destiny – where the delivery of the strategy is carried out, in a spirit of continuous learning and adaptation.57

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 27

Robert Goldberg, a management consultant in the USA, highlights some key learning from his experience of working with appreciative inquiry. This includes an understanding that ‘the way we think about something actually makes a difference’.58 Since January 2000, Skownan First Nation and the Canadian International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) have worked in partnership to use appreciative inquiry to explore how Aboriginal people value the lands around them and how this information can be incorporated into provincial land-use and resource management (see Box 16). Box 16: Sharing values and making plans together The Skownan First Nation/IISD appreciative inquiry project aimed to develop a process to help Aboriginal people identify community values with respect to the forested land around them effectively express those values to decision-makers in the provincial government, the forest industry and other stakeholders, and stimulate discussion by all stakeholders on ways to incorporate Aboriginal values into land use planning and resource management. It involved training a local team to use the approach, conducting three sets of interviews, holding six community workshops, making use of video to convey the community’s values and vision accurately and powerfully, and holding focus group workshops to enable the people of Skownan First Nation to communicate their values and vision to decision-makers, explore the benefits and opportunities for using appreciative inquiry, and stimulate discussion on how to engage in collaborative processes when working with Aboriginal communities. While the project originally intended to address only natural resource related issues, aspects of health, education, spirituality, recreation and economic development were also incorporated as the project evolved. An internal project evaluation, undertaken by Skownan team members in mid-June 2001, revealed that community members felt that Appreciative Inquiry was an effective tool for determining the community’s values and vision. They felt it assisted them in understanding how they use and value the land, to voice what is important to them, and in identifying their common goals. It also allowed community members to be participants rather than followers. Participants anticipated that the outcomes of the Appreciative Inquiry project would be useful in future planning activities, as the community now knows what it wants to achieve and can work towards a common goal. The use of video was viewed as an effective tool for communicating with decision-makers and encouraging them to listen to the views of the people of Skownan. It was also felt to be an effective tool for communicating with youth—to teach children about the old ways. They hoped the video could be shared with other communities and passed on a future generations. Several participants noted that to continue the process, they need to continue meeting, listening to each other’s dreams and visions, and discussing ways of addressing the pressure on their lands and its resources. Others hoped that by working together, community members will be able to keep their traditional lands and reclaim the gifts that have been given to them.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 28

Source: IISD 2001. Integrating Aboriginal Values into Land-Use and Resource Management: Final Report January 2000 to June 2001 Available at: http://iisd.ca/pdf/skownan_final_nopics.pdf (accessed 23 Feb 2003)

Conversations and dialogue Fernando Flores says that ‘an organisation’s results are determined through webs of human commitments, born in webs of human conversations’. Business leaders who were surveyed to identify common themes present in conversations that had a powerful impact on them and that helped to generate new learning, said these included: • a sense of mutual respect • taking the time to really talk together and reflect about was important • listening to each other, even if there were differences • being accepted rather than judged • a strengthened relationship • exploring questions that mattered • developing shared meaning • learning something new or important • strengthening mutual commitment. Fostering quality learning conversations in organisations is increasingly seen as one strategy for improving sharing of learning.59 One such approach is the use of dialogue. ‘The purpose of dialogue is to go beyond any one individual’s understanding. The key characteristic of a dialogue is that each participant is not trying to “win”, since all participants win in a genuine dialogue. In dialogue, individuals gain insights that could not be achieved individually. A new kind of mind comes into being that is based on the development of common meaning. People are no longer primarily in opposition, nor can they be said to be interacting: rather they are participating in a pool of common meaning, capable of constant development and change.’60 Learning with stakeholders The concept of pluralism may be worth considering in any learning approaches being undertaken by the National Health Service. Pluralism can be defined as the existence within any society of a variety of groups with different, autonomous and sometimes mutually conflicting interests, values and perspectives. Further, these differing views can not be reduced to a common perspective by the reference to an absolute standard.61 Many participatory processes attempt to achieve a consensus position – working towards an assumption that there is a ‘right’ answer that can be found, particularly if all stakeholders can be persuaded to get on board. Pluralism insists that progress can be made without the need for consensus. Views, values, perceptions and objectives are likely to be different and remain so, but this is not an insurmountable barrier to communication, negotiation and the seeing of standards and accountability to them. The World Bank

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 29

makes use of e-mail discussions as one way of trying to learn from a range of stakeholders (see Box 17). Box 17: World Bank: listening and learning from clients and stakeholders. The Development Forum has been the World Bank's venue for e-discussions since late1998. It recognises the vital role of knowledge and communication in sustainable development, the benefits when clients and stakeholders play an active role in contributing to the information resources on a particular topic, and the role that focused dialogue can play in facilitating cooperation. Emphasising knowledge sharing does not mean de-emphasising debate and honest disagreement; it means learning from that debate, and sharing honestly both successes and failures, what worked and what did not. For that reason, the Development Forum is a space for discussion and debate… and learning. The Forum recently hosted its 100th public e-discussion. As a low-cost service to Bank units and partners, it has added value to their work by providing an online space for discussing a very broad and exciting range of topics. These discussions have had an impact on Bank research, documents, and policies through the contributions of thousands of active participants from over 150 countries. Supporting communities of practice The Forum and its e-discussions are tools for supporting communities of practice (CoP), informal groups of practitioners from different countries and disciplines who share common interests and work together to solve real-life development problems. Ediscussions are popular features of any CoP because they connect practitioners relatively easily and help to answer just-in-time inquiries. Lessons learned What lessons have we learned after hosting 100 discussions with over 50,000 members?

Use e-discussion as simply one tool: Ediscussions are best used to complement other forms of consultations such as face-to-

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 30

face events and videoconferences.

Define clearly the objectives: a clear understanding of the specific issues that need to be addressed is essential for success

Connect the results to something tangible: participation increases when participants know in advance that their contributions will have an impact and an outcome

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 31

Keep the technology simple: The platform used is relatively low-tech and email-based.

Engage the services of a facilitator: Experience has proven a direct correlation between time expended by a facilitator and results attained.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 32

Make the discussion inclusive: Advertise widely and offer the discussion in different languages.

Recruit a partner and participants: A partner or two offers numerous advantages particularly when it comes to facilitation, marketing, and overall credibility. Source: www.worldbank.org/ks/k-practice_stories_df.html

Parallel with pluralism of stakeholders is the pluralism of contexts and settings. The Effectiveness Initiative (See Box 18) highlights the danger of a ‘one size fits all’ approach that ignores the specifics of particular settings, which can hinder effective learning. At the same time, there may be some elements at the level of processes of learning that can be generalised across settings. Box 18: The Effectiveness Initiative – understanding ‘good process’

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 33

The Effectiveness Initiative (EI) was pioneered by Bernard van Leer Foundation and partner organisations in the Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development as a three-year investigation. The Effectiveness Initiative links 10 different long-standing early childhood development projects around the world in an ongoing cross-site and cross-cultural dialogue based on the in-depth study of each. The aim is to explore what makes a programme effective, under what conditions, and for whom; both what supports and what hinders a project under particular conditions and in particular contexts; and what these contours describe about effective programming more generally. In the process the EI has maintained an international dialogue on how to create useful tools and/or support effective programming for young children and families. The impetus for the cross-site dialogue came from the local early childhood development projects themselves.It was sustained by linking two ‘insiders’ (from each project) and two ‘outsiders’ (from an international research team) together over time. Electronic communication and periodic face-to-face meetings kept the dialogue going. In this way EI provided the framework to share the learning from each site and engage the sites in a continuing reflection on aspects of effectiveness. The EI thus aimed at an understanding of what makes for effective approaches in each setting, but also to look for broader common themes, without losing the richness of the local context in the process. The team recognised the tension between the importance of lessons from local contexts in their diversity and more generalised notions of ‘effectiveness’ that could be drawn. Packaging learning and experience can remove it from context, something that is always a risk in producing documents and the ‘products’. However, elements of how to sustain the process of dialogue and some supportive characteristics of programming can be generalised, perhaps heralding a shift from good practice to good process. It is these more elusive aspects of process that EI sought to understand, rather than the detail of particular programmes as such. The initiative is now in a consolidation phase, having identified 12 main areas of importance. Examples of key elements of effectiveness include: • the need for credibility and trust. This hinged on people being able to continually negotiate the findings and analysis emerging from project work over time, and also to feel that their voices and values were heard and respected • the value of providing ‘spaces of reflection’, in whatever form, so that people could begin to develop their own understandings and set their own agenda. Participatory methods were as important for the space of reflection that they introduced, as any specific priorities that emerged at a particular time. Sources: See Early Childhood Matters No. 99 for the ‘first fruits’ of all the EI projects: go to publicationsperiodicals, ECM issue 99 on the website: http://www.bernardvanleer.org/; For more detailed background of the Effectiveness Initiative go to: http://www.healthcomms.org/doc/EI%20in%20brief-eng.doc

At the furthest end of the spectrum of involving stakeholders lies the work of Community Information, Empowerment Transparency (CIET). Involving the public and health workers in information gathering and analysis in Atlantic Canada provides an example of the way thorough public involvement can help inform public health practice and priorities (see box 19). Capacity development in building local information systems and evidence based planning and action is a key part of this process. In addition, building relationships

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 34

with local and national media and feeding them newsworthy local data – ‘socialising the evidence’ - enables learning to be shared as the research progresses. CIET is a nongovernmental organisation working in several countries with an academic institute in Mexico. Its local evidence-based planning work has looked at a range of issues stretching from input into public health priorities in Atlantic Canada to sexual violence in South Africa and corruption in Uganda. Box 19: CIET – Building the community voice into planning CIET aims to bring scientific research methods to community levels, building capacity for such research with local people, and supporting them to inform the decisions that affect their lives. A range of qualitative and quantitative methods are used with a panel of representative or ‘sentinel’ communities. After thorough review of existing data on a survey topic, standards-based instruments are designed in consultation with all stakeholders and local survey teams are trained on site. Data are analysed relating to coverage, cost, and impact of particular services, programmes, and interventions. As part of a ten-step process of ‘socialisation of evidence’ preliminary findings are fed back to the surveyed communities and discussed by them in focus groups for their interpretation and proposed solutions. This is followed by discussions of the evidence at regional and national levels, with an emphasis on building strategies for action. Cycles of data collection, analysis and ‘socialisation’ on different aspects of the issue are repeated at intervals, allowing assessment of what actions have been taken and their effects. The repeat cycle also allows a focus on different priority areas in turn – perinatal care, dental health in 5-9 years olds, risk taking with drugs and alcohol in 9-12 year olds - providing the basis for sustained, critical dialogue on issues that affect people's daily lives. Where the main focus is on accountability of organisations for the objectives they declare, the application of this set of methods is often called a ‘Social Audit’. Another important component of the CIET approach is the development of relationships with local and international media, so that the ‘socialisation of evidence’ includes key findings being highlighted in the media. In this way, groups of the public not engaged with particular health services are also made aware of the local evidence. By packaging the evidence to provide concise newsworthy copy, the major health issues make for engaging reading and ensure ongoing coverage. Involving key stakeholders in the research also means that in many ways the ‘research is the message’ with the potential to change people’s perceptions and actions. Sources: For examples of projects by theme: http://www.ciet.org/www/image/theme/_newframes.html ; For examples of media reports: http://www.ciet.org/www/image/press/_pressframes.html

Conclusions Researchers looking at the approach of the Office for Standards in School Education (OFSTED) have identified some lessons that might be of relevance to learning improvement initiatives in the NHS. They suggest that OFSTED’s inspection and learning process tends to assume that when needs and goals are made clear and people are enabled through appropriate education and training to achieve these goals, then change

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 35

will occur. This suggests that learning is non-problematic and non-controversial. However, learning processes are usually complex and non-linear. The inspection process could lead to a situation where the work of school improvement could be seen from the perspective of the teacher and school as being the minimisation of imposed change and the avoidance of change while creating the impression of working toward improvements. They suggest that looking at school improvement as a problematic, complex and multilayered process of learning that will help to enhance understanding of how to achieve real improvements in practice.62 This draws attention to the need to look at not simply the cognitive level of learning, but also the irrational and emotional dimensions of learning in organisations. The emotional climate is where everything gets played out: power games, contempt, envy, despair, but also joy, pleasure, interest and enthusiasm. The emotional climate will deeply influence organisational dynamics, for example creativity and the generation of ideas, the organisation’s readiness for change, and the facilitation of learning.63 Experience shows that there are three key issues to consider when trying to create a knowledge sharing culture in an organisation. 64 1. The role of information and communication technology (ICT) must not be overemphasised. ICT is a tool for sharing knowledge, but it is up to people if they want to share their knowledge. Limitations of technology to transfer tacit knowledge must also be recognised. 2. Managerial interventions must take place to remove barriers that restrict knowledge sharing. Although ICT gives an opportunity for people to do their work independently from time and place, and without physical proximity to their colleagues, face-to-face interaction must be encouraged. This will improve interpersonal trust, speed up knowledge flow, increase knowledge redundancy, and develop a common language. 3. People must be rewarded for knowledge sharing, not for hoarding it. Intraorganisational (unit, team) boundaries should be removed, and staff should work towards a common goal. These themes echo again and again in the examples that have been used in this report. Supporting learning and encouraging the sharing of learning is not a simple process. Although there are now many useful tools and techniques available that can help, time, resources, commitment and determination are factors that need to be part of the process. Part of that commitment involves a willingness to let go of some of the control mechanisms and to go with the flow of the learning process. One cannot learn without changing, nor change without learning. Strengthening learning processes mean being prepared to follow through what the learning suggests are ways forward, even if this means challenging existing power and control systems. Again and again, example after example, demonstrates the importance of trust, of developing working relationships, and of nurturing the opportunities for interaction and exchange of ideas and viewpoints if we are serious about learning. Once social bonds

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 36

have been built through face to face engagement, then technology can have a role in continuing the learning opportunities. Encouraging interaction is particularly important if tacit knowledge and learning – which is the hardest to capture, share and explain – is to be valued. The interaction of people is the best way to get tacit knowledge shared. A key point that emerges from all the work reviewed around learning and sharing of learning is that progress can be made without consensus. Sharing perspectives, considering a range of options rather than only one, and being prepared to experiment, explore, and enquire can be a good way of engaging with the plurality of views that exist in an organisation, in a community, in a society. As this report has demonstrated, one of the key challenges to tackle is the idea that learning and sharing learning is some form of an ‘add-on’ – something that people do if they have time once the ‘real’ work is done. For learning to occur and for the environment to be nurtured that enables learning to be shared, the concept that learning is at the heart of an organisation’s work needs to be communicated, loudly, clearly and consistently. Learning is the ‘real’ work. So reading, reflecting, and building relationships are key aspects of the work of any organisation that wants to function efficiently in the 21st century. So too are processes of dialogue, conversation, storytelling and listening – processes that encourage diverse views, diverse approaches to a problem, rather than striving for a single, unified approach that is meant to apply in all circumstances and situations. Learning involves being flexible, being adaptable, being able to recognise what works and to build on that, to make it stronger, to help it grow.

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 37

References 1

Rifkin, W and Fulop, L. 1997. A review and case study on learning organizations. The Learning Organization: An International Journal 4:4 135-148 2 Brown, J.S. and Gray, E.S. 1995. The people are the company: how to build your company around your people. Fast Company. (November). Available at: http://www.fastcompany.com/online/01/people.html (accessed 17 Mar 2003) 3 Webber, A.M. 1999 Learning for a change Fast Company 24: 178 Available at: http://www.fastcompany.com/online/24/senge.html (accessed 24 March 2003) 4 UNAIDS. n.d. Best practice. Available at: http://unaids.org/bestpractice/index.html (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 5 Human Resource Development Council. 1997. Getting results through learning. Washington: Human Resource Development Council. Available at http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/pubs/handbk2/hrdhdbk.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 6 Wenger, E. 1996. Communities of practice: The social fabric of a learning organization. Healthcare Forum Journal (July), 20-26. 7 Learning Declaration Group. 2000. A declaration on learning – version 2. Available at: http://www.mwls.co.uk/learndec.htm (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 8 Sandelands, E. 1999. Learning organizations: a review of the literature relating to strategies, building blocks and barriers Management Literature in Review Vol 1. Available at: http://www.helpdesk.net.au/taining/organisational/Learning%20organizations%20a%20review (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 9 Canadian Centre for Management Development. 1994. Continuous Learning (Ottawa: CCMD) Available at http://www.ccmd-ccg.gc.ca/research/publications/pdfs/rpt1e.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 10 Argyris, C. 1994. Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review 72(4):77-85 11 Kippenberger, T 1998. Sharing knowledge at BP. The Antidote. 3:1 38-40 12 Human Resource Development Council. 1997. Getting results through learning. Washington: Human Resource Development Council. Available at: http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/pubs/handbk2/hrdhdbk.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 13 Human Resource Development Council. 1997. Getting results through learning. Washington: Human Resource Development Council. Available at: http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/pubs/handbk2/hrdhdbk.pdf (accessed 3 March 2003) 14 Learning Declaration Group. 2000. A declaration on learning – version 2. Available at: http://www.mwls.co.uk/learndec.htm (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 15 Centre for Higher Education Development 2000. Experiential Learning. Available at: http://www.el.uct.ac.za (accessed 25 Feb 2003) 16 Kolb, David, et al,1971. Organizational psychology: an experiential approach New Jersey: Prentice-Hall 17 Alinsky, S.D. 1972. Rules for radicals. New York: Random House 18 Bunning, R.L. 1997. A manufacturing organization action learning programme that has paid bottom-line profits. Career Development International 2:6 267-273 Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/pdfs/199934.pdf (accessed 25 Feb 2003) 19 Powell, S. n.d. Interview with Raina Savolainen Articles from Management First. Available at: http://www.mangementfirst.com/articles/articles_print/savolainen_print.htm (accessed on 23 Feb 2003) 20 ISNAR. n.d. Approach to Agricultural Research Management Training. Available at: http://www.isnar.cgiar.org/learning/ (accessed 18 Feb 2003) 21 Hawkins, P. 1994 . The Changing View of Learning, in Burgoyne, J., Pedler, M. & Boydell, T., Towards the Learning Company: Concepts and Practices, London: McGraw Hill. 22 Barbara Whitaker Shimko, B.W., Meli, J.T., et al. 2000. Debunking the "lean and mean" myth and celebrating the rise of learning organizations. The Learning Organization: An International Journal. 7:2 99-109 23 Munby, H. 2002 What does it mean to learn in the workplace? Different research perspectives. Journal of Workplace Learning Available at: http://dandini.emeraldinsight.com/vl=2335110/cl=115/nw=1/rpsv/journals/jwl/editorial.htm (accessed 24 Feb 2003)

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 38

24

Peters, J. and Smith, P. 1998. Learn to ask the right questions. Journal of Workplace Learning 10:3 169172 25 Griffey, S. 1998. Conceptual frameworks beyond the learning organisation. The Learning Organization: An International Journal 5:2 68-73 Available at: http://www.helpdesk.net.au/training/organisational/conceptual%20frameworks.htm (accessed 25 Feb 2003) 26 Prewitt, V. 2003. Leadership development for learning organisations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24:2, 58-61 27 O’Malley, D. and O’Donoghue, G. 2000. Discussion Paper: NGOs and the Learning Organisation London: BOND 28 Sugarman, B. 1996. Learning, working, managing, sharing: the new paradigm of the ‘Learning Organisation’ Available at: http://www.lesley.edu/journals/jppp/2/sugarman.html (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 29 Johnson, J. 2002. Leading the learning organization: portrait of four leaders Leadership & Organization Development Journal 23:5, 241-249 30 Dixon, N.M. 2000. Common Knowledge: how companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press 31 Bennet, R. and Gabriel, H. 1999. Organisational factors and knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management 3:3 212-225 Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/pdfs/200123.pdf (accessed 25 Feb 2003) 32 Hunt, P. (ed.) 2000. Knowledge management: implications for development organisations. Ottawa: Bellanet. 33 Li, J. 2002. Theory and practice: knowledge system design framework. Knowledge System News Available at: http://www.leadingway.com/nl-back/Newsletter11_19_02.htm (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 34 Anon. 2001. Managing Tacit Knowledge: a report on the European CSCW (computer supported collaborative work) Workshop, Bonn, Germany, 16 September 2001. Available at: http://construct.haifa.ac.il/events/workshop-report.pdf (accessed 25 Feb 2003) 35 Panos. 1998. Information, Knowledge and Development London: Panos Institue Available at:http://www.oneworld.org/panos/knowlpap.htm (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 36 de Merode, L. 2000. KM Do’s and Don’ts in: Hunt, P. (ed.) 2000. Knowledge management: Implications and Applications for development organizations. Ottawa: Bellanet 37 Drew, R. 2002. Learning in Partnership: what constitutes learning in the context of South-North partnership. London: Bond/Exchange Available at: http://www.bond.org.uk/lte/discussion_paper.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 38 Farrell, M., Ryan, S. and Langrick, B. 2001. ‘Breaking bad news’ within a paediatric setting: an evaluation report of a collaborative education workshop to support health professionals. Journal of Advanced Nursing 36:6 765-775 39 Prewitt, V. 2003. Leadership development for learning organisations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24:2, 58-61 40 Prewitt, V. 2003. Leadership development for learning organisations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24:2, 58-61 41 Manville, B. and Foote, N. 1996. Harvesting your workers’ knowledge. Datamation Available at: http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/issues.shtml (accessed 3 Mar 03) 42 Thomas, J.C. 1998. Fostering the collaborative creation of knowledge: a white paper Available at: http://www.research.ibm.com/knowsoc/project_paper.html (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 43 Bennet, R. and Gabriel, H. 1999. Organisational factors and knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management 3:3 212-225 Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/pdfs/200123.pdf (accessed on 25 Feb 2003) 44 Hunt, P. (ed.) 2000. Knowledge management: implications for development organisations. Ottawa: Bellanet. 45 Soal, S. 2001. Making the learning organisation literal – CDRA’s Homeweek. Available at: http://www.cdra.org.za (click on Articles) or http://www.comminit.com/Commentary/sld-3463.html (both accessed on 25 Feb 2003) 46 Hill, R., Bullard, T. et al. 1998. Learning about learning organisations: case studies of skill formation in five New Zealand organisations. The Learning Organization: An International Journal 5:4 184-192

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 39

Available at: http://www.webresearch.co.nz/Public/Publications/LearningAboutLOs.pdf (accessed on 26 Feb 2003) 47 Sandelands, E. 1999. Learning organizations: a review of the literature relating to strategies, building blocks and barriers Management Literature in Review Vol 1. Available at: http://www.helpdesk.net.au/training/organisational/Learning%20organizations%20a%20review.htm (accessed 19 March 2003) 48 Ward, A. 2000. Getting strategic value from constellations of communities. (Originally published in Mar/Apr 2000 in Strategy and Leadership 28:2 4-9). Available at http://www.workfrontiers.com/constellations%20rev.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 03) 49 Por, G. 2001. Building a case for communities of practice: what makes communities of practice an economic imperative? Available at: http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/thought.shtml (accessed 3 Mar 03) 50 Denning, S. 2000. Oral versus written stories. Available at: http://www.stevedenning.com/oral_stories.html (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 51 IBM n.d. Why Stories? Available at: http://www.research.ibm.com/knowsoc/project_whystories.html (accessed 23 Feb 2003) 52 Haghirian, P. and Chini, T.C. 2002. Storytelling: Transferring tacit corporate knowledge in different cultures. Vienna: Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration Available at: http://www.sses.com/public/events/euram/complete_tracks/management_play/haghirian_chini.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 53 Anon. 2001. Managing Tacit Knowledge: a report on the European CSCW (computer supported collaborative work) Workshop, Bonn, Germany, 16 September 2001. Available at: http://construct.haifa.ac.il/events/workshop-report.pdf (accessed 25 Feb 2003), reporting on a presentation by John C. Thomas 54 Haghirian, P. and Chini, T.C. 2002. Storytelling: Transferring tacit corporate knowledge in different cultures. Vienna: Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration Available at: http://www.sses.com/public/events/euram/complete_tracks/management_play/haghirian_chini.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 55 Cooperrider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. 1987. Appreciative inquiry in organisational life Research in Organisational Change and Development Vol 1; 129-169 Available at: http://www.appreciativeinquiry.org/AI-Life.htm (accessed 25 Feb 2003) 56 Cooperrider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. 1987. Appreciative inquiry in organisational life Research in Organisational Change and Development Vol 1; 129-169 Available at: http://www.appreciativeinquiry.org/AI-Life-part2.htm (accessed 25 Feb 2003) 57 IISD. 2000. From problems to strengths Available at: http://iisd.ca/ai/ (accessed on 3 Mar 2003) 58 Goldberg, R.A. 2001. Implementing a professional development system through appreciative inquiry. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 22:2 56-61 59 Brown, J. and Isaacs, D. 1997. Conversation as a core business practice The Systems Thinker 7:10 Available at: http://www.theworldcafe.com/Conversation.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 60 Denning, S. 2000. Social nature of communications: David Bohm and dialogue. Available at: http://www.stevedenning.com/communications_Bohm.html (accessed 3 Mar 2003) 61 Anderson, J., Clement, J. and Crowder, L.V. 1998. Pluralism in sustainable forestry and rural development: an overview of concepts, approaches and future steps. Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/for/forc/plural/introPlu.stm (accessed 25 Feb 2003) 62 Tosey, P. and Nicholls, G. 1999. OFSTED and Organisational Learning: the incidental value of a dunce’s cap as a strategy for school improvement Teacher Development 3:1 5-17 63 Stewart, D. 2001. Reinterpreting the learning organisation. Adelaide: Victoria School of Management. Available at: http://www.business.vu.edu.au/MgtContent/Working%20Paper.pdfs/Workingpaperdeb2001.pdf (accessed 23 Feb 2003) 64 Haghirian, P. and Chini, T.C. 2002. Storytelling: Transferring tacit corporate knowledge in different cultures. Vienna: Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration Available at: http://www.sses.com/public/events/euram/complete_tracks/management_play/haghirian_chini.pdf (accessed 3 Mar 2003)

Learning to Share Learning – an Exchange review – March 2003 – page 40