Esangathan Integrated Roadmaps

Integrated Roadmaps byLeif Bloch RASMUSSEN and Viktoria SKARLER (Copenhagen Business School) eSangathan is a FP6 EU-funded project with the following consortium : DISTANCE EXPERT Project Coordinator Contact: Nicole TURBÉ-SUETENS AGEPROOF Contact: Marianne ZIEKEMEYER COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Contact: Leif Bloch RASMUSSEN FOLKUNIVERSITETET Contact: Martina Sophia BACH MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA Limited Contact: Mandar VARTAK NETCIPIA Contact: Miguel MEMBRADO TECHMAHINDRA Limited Contact: Chitresh MARKANDA www.esangathan.eu

1/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

TABLE OF CONTENTS WHAT YOU WILL FIND IN THIS DOCUMENT ................................................................ 3 1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 4

2.

OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................. 6

3.

INTEGRATED ROADMAP .................................................................................. 7 3.1 OVERALL ROADMAP AS MOVEMENTS IN SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE 7 3.1.1 Social Learning Space 7 3.1.2 Inquiring Systems in a Knowledge Based Society 11

4.

POTENTIAL MOVEMENTS IN THE SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE ......................................15 4.1 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HIERARCHY-UNSTRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL BOUNDARY 15 4.2 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL BOUNDARY 17 4.3 MOVEMENT AT THE UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL BOUNDARY 17 4.4 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL-CHAOTIC BOUNDARY 19 4.5 MOVEMENTS IN CHAOS 20 4.6 USE OF MOVEMENTS IN SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE IN PRACTICE 23

5.

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................24

6.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ...............................................................................25 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Attempted movement in eSangathan ............................................................... 7 Figure 2 – Overall aim of movement in informational and social connectivity............................ 8 Figure 3 - Social Learning Space .................................................................................10 Figure 4 - Expansion of inquiring systems in a knowledge based society .................................13

2/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

WHAT YOU WILL FIND IN THIS DOCUMENT This deliverable shows the experiences and development gained from the two pilots in the eSangathan projects: Mahindra&Mahindra and Öresund Pilot. It integrates these experiences and developments into a suggestion for an Integrated Roadmap for eInclusion for an ageing workforce. Its starting point is the original joint work plan and the roadmaps planned for the eSangathan project. The integrated roadmap draws heavily on the pilots and on theoretical developments in the three year period that the eSangathan project was planned and carried out. The original thinking on moving the participants towards WEB 2.0 has proven to be well advised, yet it also involve a paradigm shift in understanding age, ICT and societal and human challenges facing an ageing workforce. A suggestion for a integrated roadmap based on three pillars of ICT/CWE, Informational Connectivity and Informational connectivity is put forward – strongly supported by experiences from the two eSangathan pilots. A roadmap aiming at both liberation and immunization in handling ICT/CWE – or any methodology or tool - for supporting ‘an ageing workforce’ in a globalized world with mutual trust as its first amendment. This integrated roadmap are explicated and illustrated for users of the future in ICT/CWE through ten potential movements as a social learning process, again heavily based on experiences from the two eSangathan Pilots.

3/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

1. INTRODUCTION In the final roadmap 1 we described how the overall roadmap and the specific roadmaps on communication, collaboration, social learning and business modelling had been used and how they had been changes during the work in the two pilots: Mahindra&Mahindra Pilot and Öresund Pilot. After the evaluation of the pilots and the specific evaluation of ICT/CWE used 2 and based on the evaluation of the methodologies and tools used for social learning we now turn back and try to summarize experiences and evaluation into an Integrated Roadmap. This roadmap was originally planned as a roadmap for working together in the future across countries, continents and cultures by experimenting and drawing good practices on the methodologies for employment, social learning and ICT/CWE for an ageing workforce. We hope this integrated version will be able to contribute to that effort and bring the Indian and Öresund Pilots practices, experiences and reflections together into a single framework. We still believe that this is a possibility, especially through the original focus on a knowledge based global society. On the other hand, the work in the two pilots cannot be brought together for the very simple reason that the Indian Pilot focused on what during the lifespan of the project have come to be called the Informational connectivity while the Öresund Pilot focused more on Social Connectivity. An integrating tool - a wiki-solution - was tried out and it still gives hope for the future, especially as we realize, that the CWE solution in the two pilots as well as the culturecrossing wiki-solution were attempts at WEB 2.0 solution for cross cultural communication. But what turned out of this experiment was that the integration of social- and informational connectivity via CWE/ICT was lacking and may have await a deeper and broader understanding of semantic WEB (eventually called WEB 3.0). Here we have to keep in mind, that a face-to-face meeting between the participants in the two pilots ‘only’ took place via the leaders of the two pilots and a meeting between one Öresund Pilot participant and the Indian Pilot participants during the conference in Mumbai. Whether more face-to-face meetings would have helped cannot be answered by the data available form the pilots, but we suspect it would. That said, the Integrated Roadmap will still be based on the Joint Work Plan and the methodologies and CWE/ICT depicted there. However it will now take the form of a normative description of movements in a Social Learning Space of the potentials in Informational and Social connectivity supported by CWE/ICT. The overall normative movement also are still aiming at supporting an ageing workforce (and other humans in- or outside the workforce as well) to work and make a difference in handling 1

Deliverable D028. Deliverables D031 for the ICT/CWE, D035/36 for the Öresund Pilot, D037/D038 for the Mahindra&Mahindra Pilot.

2

4/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

structured problems in hierarchical settings as well as handling wicked/unstructured problems in heterarchical settings. The road to follow by any network, individual or organization can – we hope – be chosen or elaborated based on the description of the potential movement that we will describe in the following paragraphs.

5/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

2. OBJECTIVE The objective is to redefine the overall roadmap of the eSangathan project in such a way that it may be used by networks, individuals and organization in creating employment, social learning, work-life balance and ICT/CWE as a supporting vehicle for an ageing workforce. Thereby we try to tell of possibilities gained from eSangathan in such a way that any individual, organization and/or network can utilize the integrated roadmap to create their own specific roadmap. It is to be taken as an inspiration, not a prescription that has to be followed step-bystep.

6/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

3. INTEGRATED ROADMAP

3.1 OVERALL

ROADMAP AS MOVEMENTS IN SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE

The overall roadmap consists of two main theoretical frameworks. One on what we call Social Learning Space and one on Inquiring Systems thinking in the Informational Age.

3.1.1

SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE

The first part consists in finding and elaborating on the pilot position in an originally undefined two times two matrixes by Miguel Membrado. He depicted the road we would have to follow in order to cope with the challenges in a globalized knowledge-based world. This movement is shown in fig.1: Figure 1 - Attempted movement in eSangathan Participation (Self-Organizing Heterarchies)

Web 2.0

Unstructured (Wicked) Problems/Context

Structured Problems/Context

Direction (Hierarchy)

It consists of two dimensions: • •

Structured problems – wicked/unstructured problems, where we look at challenges as consisting of solvable problems at the one end and un-solvable problems at the other end Hierarchical Context – Heterarchical Context, where attempts to formulate and solve problems are formed. At the one end we have a hierarchical context where directions are given form outside and above, and at the other end we have a heterarchical

7/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

context, where there are no directions, but participation and self-organizing are needed. These two dimensions have been reframed by two other dimensions during the lifespan of the project: • •

Informational Connectivity, where overview and consistency of information are important together with semantics Social Connectivity, where social cohesion among people and in society are important together with pragmatics

At the same time we have used the experiences in the pilots together with the work of the Cynefin Centre in Wales (see Kurtz, C.F. & Snowden, D. (2003) and Snowden, D. (2002) to connect value making, relation making, decision making and sense making into a social learning space as shown in fig. 2. Figure 2 – Overall aim of movement in informational and social connectivity

8/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

Social Connectivity

Quadrant 3 Structured/Heterarchical

Quadrant 4 Unstructured/Heterarchical

•Complex knowing •Informal Independent •The informal organization •Social Networks •Cause and effect are only coherent •in retrospect and do not repeat •Pattern management •Perspective Filters •Complex adaptive systems •Probe-Sense-Respond Weak Central, Strong Distributed power over knowing creation and sharing

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

Chaos knowing

• • • •

Stability-focused intervention

Uncharted innovative Temporary Communities Disruptive Space No cause and effect relationships perceivable Enactment tools Crisis management Act-Sense-Respond

Weak Central-Weak Distributed power over knowing creation and sharing

Quadrant 1

Quadrant 2

Structured/Hierarchical

Unstructured/Hierarchical

• • • • •

Known knowing Bureaucratic Structured Coherent Groupings Largely information Cause and effect relations repeatable, perceivable and predictable Legitimate best practice Standard operating procedures Process reengineering Sense- Categorize-Respond

• • • •

Knowable knowing Professional Logical Communities of Practice Known membership and objectives Cause and effect separated over time and space Analytical/Reductionist Scenario Planning Systems Thinking Sense-Analyze-Respond Strong Central-Strong Distributed power over knowing creation and sharing

Strong Central-Weak Distributed power over knowing creation and sharing

Informational Connectivity

Bringing these two opinions together we get a social learning space that looks like in fig. 3.

9/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

Figure 3 - Social Learning Space

Social Connectivity

Participation (Self-Organizing Heterarchies)

WEB 2.0 WEB 3.0

Unstructured (Wicked) Problems/Context

Structured Problems/Context

Direction (Hierarchy)

Informational connectivity

In this image it is the hypothesis that moving from hierarchy to heterarchy can bring social connectivity about at the same time as moving from handling structured problems towards handling un-structured (wicked) problems can bring informational connectivity about. Both these movements can be supported by ICT/CWE. The challenge is to find a proper balance between these three possibilities in the social learning space. To that we suggest the help from Inquiring Systems thinking in order to create a collaborative working environment.

10/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

3.1.2

INQUIRING SYSTEMS IN A KNOWLEDGE BASED SOCIETY

The second part of the methodology in the overall roadmap consists in finding and elaborating on the one’s position in the Inquiring Systems thinking in the Informational Age. In this we take a Collaborative Working Environment (CWE) to consist of, at least some persons of a certain Inquiring Types who faces Problems within some Organizational Context for which they need Evidence to arrive at solutions, where the evidence is made available through some mode of Presentation. Any design for a CWE must consider the following possibilities: 1. Inquiring Type Introvert – Extrovert as: • Thinking-Sensation type • Thinking-Intuition type • Feeling-Sensation type • Feeling-Intuition type 2. Class of Problems Symmetric – Asymmetric Information in: • Structured problems • Decisions under certainty • Decisions under risk • Decisions under uncertainty • Un-structured – “Wicked” Decision Problems 3. Methods of Evidence Generation and Guarantor of Evidence – Inquiring Systems (IS) • Lockian IS (Data Based) • Leibnizian IS (Model Based) • Kantian IS (Multiple Based) • Hegelian IS (Deadly Enemy – Conflicting Models) • Singerian/Churchmanian IS (Learning Systems) 4. Organizational Context Hierarchical/Mandatory • Strategic Planning • Management Control • Operational Control Heterarchical/Participatory • Normative value based

11/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

• •

Self Control Self-Organizing

5. Modes of Presentation Personalistic • Drama – Role Plays • Art – Graphics • One-to-One contact group interaction Impersonalistic • Company Reports • Abstract Models – computerized information systems First of all the possibility for designing and implementing a CWE that could take all of these factors into account is not possible. A simple count will give 2048 combinations. The same holds for designing and implementing methodologies that would suit any constellation of a pilot. The complexity proliferates and only dialogue and self-organizing may handle the complexity. However, we can hypothesize some hints. A constellation of {thinking-sensation, structured, lockian/leibnizian, hierarchical and impersonalistic} may best describe quadrant 1 situations. At the other end a constellation of {feeling-intuition, unstructured (wicked), kantian/hegelian/singer-churchmanian and personalistic} could describe the situation in quadrant 4. The first crucial issue – is of course the inquiring types. In ICT/CWE in the age of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 it seems as if the extrovert/introvert thinking-sensation inquiring type is prevalent, while in the age of Web 3.0 (and maybe Web 4.0) the extrovert/introvert feeling-intuitive inquiring type might be needed. The other crucial factor is the modes of evidence 3 . The original work of Mason and Mitroff (1973) is based on Churchman’s book from 1971: Design of Inquiring Systems. In this a Western way of thinking (and feeling) on modes of evidence is used – based on five prominent Western philosophers. Modes of evidence based on other philosophies like Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and African etc. are advisable, but we will here base our reflections on Mason & Mitroff’s arguments. Thus the Leibnizian and Lockian modes of evidence – based on logic and data respectively – can be used in the quadrant 1. And again in at the other extreme in quadrant 4 Singerian/Churchmanian modes of evidence are of need. In between Kantian modes of evidence (quadrant 2) and Hegelian (quadrant 3) is called upon.

3

A short description of each of these modes are given in appendix 1.

12/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

Figure 4 - Expansion of inquiring systems in a knowledge based society

Social Connectivit

Extrovert Intuition Feeling Perception Introvert Sensatio n Thinking

Heterarchie

Hierarchie

Informational Connectivity

In fig. 4 it is the hypothesis that a general movement for the knowledge based society should be to expand from the lower left corner towards the upper left corner – and – that these movements might turn out to best facilitated by an ageing workforce. This is of course only theoretical explorations, which when brought into practice (like in the two pilots) will show, that participants have strong opinions on these issues – of they are brought to the surface of using CWE/ICT and methodologies and social learning. Mostly they are not. The most important finding is thus – as said in the evaluation on the methodologies 4 : “ … the overall context was that the participants at the outset was not at all interested in any theoretical issue on the matter of ‘ageing workforce and CWE/ICT’. They demanded a – more or less – clear cut picture of the benefit they might get out of the project. Being part of an experiment – even for real – was OK, but all took it to be a method/tool for their own specific goal. Any vision on social and informational connectivity or move in the ‘Social Learning Space’ was very much influenced by the mental models that the participants had on the work-life balance. So the attempt to use theory as a support for their overall move in work-life was taken to be interesting even to the point of exciting – but most of all threatening.”

4

Informational Connectivity

See delieverable D044.

13/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

So the normative statement for the integrated roadmap is that any attempt to use ICT/CWE for the benefit of an ageing work force must have a clear focus on the wishes for work-life balance in retirement – or just before retirement. That asked, and hopefully with an attempted answer, the next two questions are for any network, individual or organization: What is your context: Where are you at the moment in the Social Learning Space? Where are you in the Inquiring System? Where do you want to go? Before we turn to movements in the social learning space, we must tell that we not take these ten movements to be exhaustive, but again as an inspiration for finding one’s own place and one’s own experiences. Thereby we do not make any suggestions and/or recommendations on how to bring a movement in the social learning space about. There is a dilemma involved in asking humans to change, for example their inquiring style and their preferred mode of evidence. A challenge that is implicit in moves in the social learning space. Whether humans want to embark on that journey at the present moment of their work-life balance is a question we are not equipped to answer.

14/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

4. POTENTIAL MOVEMENTS IN THE SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE Based on the practice and theory of Dave Snowden at the Cynefin Centre we reflect on our own experiences in moving by the roadmaps. According to Snowden (2003) and Kurtz & Kurtz (2003) we can identify at least ten movements: • • • • • • • • • •

Collapse Imposition Incremental Improvement Social Modeling (Just-In-Time) Exploration Swarming Divergence-Convergence Entrainment breaking Liberation Immunization

In the Integrated Roadmap we show the dynamics of moving across boundaries, which requires shifts among different models of understanding and interpretation as well as a different working and leadership style. Understanding the differences among the different movements in the roadmap changes the responses of participants to. In general, one of the functions of the roadmaps is to increase the awareness of the upper right quadrant as both a potential to create sustainable change and as a possibility for a CWE for 45+, it is in this quadrant that strategic and innovative skills are much needed. These suggestions for movements are described to make the upper right quadrant more accessible, yet accepting deviances and set-back on the road. In a way the descriptions may also serve to set up warning signs, when we move too far away from the general roadmap in fig. 3. Because each quadrant has it own right and should be used according to the situation at hand. More movements may be envisioned, but at this stage we only focus on those suggested by Kurtz & Snowden (2003). This is done in order to reflect on the movements thus far in the eSangathan project, but also for explicating possibilities for future movements. The description is based on experiences from eSangathan as individuals trying to establish a network and employment possibilities in the Öresund Pilot and employees in Mahindra & Mahindra aiming at transferring knowledge to their company before retirement. 4.1 MOVEMENT BOUNDARY

AT

THE

STRUCTURED/HIERARCHY-UNSTRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL

15/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

Collapse

Collapse

This boundary is very strong, and trying to cross it too soon may cause a communication break down. A collapse might happen, so that insecurity and uncertainty make the participants spread into separate groups and/or leave the network/organization. So it is advisable not to advance too fast and straightforward towards the goal in quadrant 4. On the other hand, if the situation is too stable in quadrant 1 one might never get moving. So an advice could be to tell about the possibilities in quadrant 4 and tell about the tools to be used in full flourish there, but only using part of the tools. But most important is that moving towards informational connectivity is the ‘easiest’ as it does not question the social ‘chemistry’ of the participants. The same arguments hold for the use of CWE. A choice of a proper CWE suited for the participants hard- and soft skills may support the informational connectivity as they can exchange data, ideas and experiences without having to get too involved in understanding the relations in the group. Moving too fast into use of a CWE might make any network or organization to collapse. A dialogue on the twelve questions in Inquiring Systems and the Socratic Dialogue may support this movement, yet it cannot be carried out unless participants open their hearts and mind towards each other.

Imposition

Imposition

This movement goes from the unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/hierarchical. It could be advisable if some of the participants feel that they are in a chaotic situation, or if some actually feel that they have conquered the ICT/CWE world. However the problem with this movement is that it can introduce a too rigid new stability that in turn becomes more rigid until the movement can start again towards quadrant 4. As Snowden and Kurtz wrote (2003, p. 476):

16/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

“A familiar example in organizational life is the cyclic reorganization of authority by industry, then by function, then by industry, and so on in an endless cycle; or the fact that wellintentioned revolutionaries sometimes put into place bureaucracies even more stifling than those they overthrew. However, we do not mean to imply that all such transitions are pathological. When order is well aligned with needs, it can bring needed savings and calm. Anyone who has seen a talented teacher takes control of a frantic classroom through authority and respect, or a policeman calm a panicked crowd, can understand the utility of imposed yet well-placed order.” 4.2 MOVEMENT BOUNDARY

AT

THE

STRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL

This is the boundary where the Leibnizian and Lockean approaches to knowledge are believed to operate in order to change into a multiplicity of models in the Kantian mode of evidence. This boundary is rather easy to cross as it involves finding out that solutions to everyday problems and challenges can create new problems not foreseen in the formulation of the problem at first and the solution later. Something was missing, some factor was changing. Even in a stable context. Therefore this move also involves a change in imagining problems being operational, tactical to being taken to be strategic and normative.

Incremental improvement Incremental Improvement

This is movement from the unstructured/hierarchical to the structured/hierarchical and back again. It is the normal way of creating technological and economic growth. However, it can become a movement between structured/hierarchical and unstructured/hierarchical that never departs from well observed and documented reality. Team Syntegrity may get this move running as it is build on the knowing of each participant and can bring them into a search for what is knowable. However it presupposes time for reflection and time social face-to-face meetings. 4.3 MOVEMENT AT THE UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL BOUNDARY The boundary between the unstructured/hierarchical and structured/heterarchical can be a fruitful one and in practice it complements the structured/hierarchicalunstructured/hierarchical border as an engine of new ideas and social learnings. It is not as fluid

17/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

and permeable as the structured/hierarchical-unstructured/hierarchical boundary because such transition must include translations in world views and habits.

Exploration

Exploration

Exploration is one-way movement from the unstructured/hierarchical and/or structured/hierarchical to the structured/heterarchical. It is an opening up of possibilities by reducing or removing central control without a total disruption of connections. Snowden & Kurz writes on this movement (2003, p. 477): “In organizations, exploration takes many forms, but trust is key in this movement. One is, in effect, taking a risk by allowing constituent connections to form and strengthen at the expense of central control, and that requires not only good planning and awareness of the “shadow” side of the organization, but also careful (but unobtrusive) monitoring of the situation. Informal communities, which may range from public to secret in their profile, provide a rich and fertile source of knowledge and learning.” The use of the Communication Platform and the Socratic Dialogue Group can be used to support this movement depending on the participants’ organizational, cultural and social experiences. But a crucial danger must be visualized, because this movement naturally will question the network and/or organization in which one is earning one’s wages or getting one’s recognition. Breaking down a hierarchy may be tempting, yet it is also threatening.

Social Modelling Social Modelling

In Snowden & Kurtz (2003) this movement is named “Just-In-Time” because they use a business model that fits one of the most popular models of our time for industrial businesses. We prefer to call it Social Modelling, as the movement include other models as well. This is one-way movement from the structured/heterarchical to the unstructured/hierarchical. This movement is often called exploitation in the complexity literature as it involves the selective choice of well-documented stable social models from structured/heterarchical space

18/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

for the representation and use in solving unstructured problems in a hierarchical way, i.e. by reducing complexity through the use of simplified models. In fact it would attempt – like it often happens – to find out a new model outside the normal hierarchy and apply it. Resistance towards change might occur, but it can be overcome by Change Management. A warning however may be important: This movement may call for using simplified models of organization and/or handling social learning. Using a project management or business model may be tempting. It is a genuine ‘reducing complexity’ exercise, but can back-fire into ‘events for events’ own sake’ or using any new ICT/CWE gadget for impressive overruling of participants. 4.4 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL-CHAOTIC BOUNDARY This boundary, like the structured/hierarchical-unstructured/hierarchical boundary, is fluid and in fact difficult to delineate. It mirrors that crossing of the structured/hierarchicalunstructured/hierarchical boundary in two ways: the first one is the engine for technological and economic learning, and the other is the engine for organizational and social learning. So we can use this border-crossing to enable the emergence of new social ideas that prove useful.

Swarming

Swarming

Swarming is the movement from the unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/heterarchical and from there to the unstructured/hierarchical. This represents crossing the boundary between “chaos” and “order”, which is a chiasm that is difficult to cross. The transition across the more permeable boundary between unstructured/heterarchical and structured/heterarchical is more manageable. A transition from the unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/heterarchical is a matter of creating multiple attractive ideas, swarming points, around which un-order can instantiate itself, whereas a transition from the unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/hierarchical “only” requires a single strong attractive idea (a project is typical). But if we are able to shift from unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/heterarchical, then we have the possibilities a multiplicity of organizational, cultural and social learning designs. Those that are found desirable are stabilized through a transfer to the exploitable domain of the unstructured/hierarchical. Those that are undesirable are killed. The first warning here is the management models or any other decision support model that may cause the reduction of complexity in an organizational, cultural and social situation, where

19/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

complexity is exactly part of the problem. A deeper warning is that being – or at least thinking/feeling to imagine to be able to act in a unstructured/heterarchical setting may close one’s eyes for tradition and the iron law of oligarchy. We may be thinking and feeling that we are saved in bringing around new technology, new worlds, new learning. Yet: is this learning really warranted? Again the Inquiring Systems Approach and the Socratic Dialogue could support managers and researchers awareness on their own firm’s institutional beliefs – and idiosyncrasies.

Divergence-convergence Divergence Convergence

This is a movement from the structured/heterarchical to the unstructured/heterarchical and back again. Snowden & Kurtz writes (2003, p. 477): “The active disruption of a complex system to precipitate its move to chaos is less of a change than moving it to either of the ordered domains, and this is easier to manage across a permeable boundary. In knowledge management, for example, informal communities that occupy the structured/heterarchical domain are more resilient when asked to undergo radical disruption in an learning program than the expert communities of the unstructured/hierarchical domain. Small start-up companies handle disruption better than large bureaucratic ones, but even within large bureaucratic organizations, there are small groups that can act in the role of start-ups, and they can increase the adaptability of the organization.” This movement may illustrate the danger in underestimating the participants. Some maybe most probably - are already on the move in their work-life towards getting others on board their ‘unstructured heterarchical’ imagined projects, ideas, visions – even to the point of being missionaries. They – as we as partners – try to get other people on board out own dream of ‘making a difference’. 4.5 MOVEMENTS IN CHAOS Thus far we have shown moves in a rather manageable/controllable environment. However, most social learning cannot be created unless chaos has been part of the movement. So Snowden & Kurtz (2003) use these first seven movements to tell about more or less secure roads to travel

20/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

in order to create social learning in work, life and use of CWE/ICT. Roads that might uproot the system. They write (2003, p. 478): “There are may be good reasons to move deliberately from order to chaos. There are times when it is necessary to break rigid structures in precipitation of a natural collapse (as one approaches the boundary), so that the transition can be managed more carefully; and there are times when a strong disruption is the only mechanism that will break up a strong but unhealthy stability. The last three movement types we will consider use the chaotic space for temporary disruption of all connections (possibly within a restricted context) as a stimulant to new growth.” So we have also to look at possibilities for participants – and for us as managers – to know how to create chaos; or break well-established patterns of understanding.

Entrainment breaking Entrainment breaking is a movement from the unstructured/hierarchical to the unstructured/heterarchical and from there onwards to the structured/heterarchical. Here we Entrainment move from the unstructured/hierarchical Breaking to unstructured/heterarchical and thus stimulate the creation of new complex systems as the system rebounds into the structured/heterarchical domain. Snowden & Kurz write on this movement (2003, p.478): “This is a common approach to disrupt the entrained thinking of experts who, in our experience, tend to be the most conservative when it comes to radical new thinking. The move to complex [structured/heterarchical] space is not radical enough to disrupt those patterns; we need to challenge at a more basic level the current assumptions of order. By using the structured/heterarchical space as a staging post, we create a more fertile space of interactions from which we can select stabilization points for the movement to the unstructured/hierarchical. A knowledge management example is the creation of formal communities by clustering and swarming informal activities from existing trusted relationships.” Entrainment is part of our defences against being intimidated and invaded by opinions and forceful aims by others to do, what not necessarily is one’s own cause in life. Any of the methodologies and any of the tools in our attempt to get a so-called ageing workforce on board ICT/CWE both as a proper workforce and as human beings aiming at understanding and using ICT/CWE, can be taken to bring down these defences. We – of course – need good reasons for this attack on peoples defences. Again dialogue and trust are of absolute necessity.

Liberation Liberation

21/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

Liberation (or empowerment as many researchers would say) is a movement from the structured/hierarchical to the structured/heterarchical and from there to the unstructured/hierarchical. Snowden & Kurz write on this movement (2003, p. 479): “Organizations tend to assume that they can design the nature of new systems. For example, an organization that needs new expertise in an area might commission a university to carry out a study, recruit specialist staff, or identify individuals within the organization and assign them new responsibilities. This is a successful and effective strategy when the conditions are suitable for ordered approaches. However, if the situation is uncertain, it is more useful to shift the problem from the domain of the known [structured/hierarchical] to the knowable [structured/heterarchical]. Organizations need to increase both internal and external levels of contact to the point where new patterns can emerge. Boisot [in “Information Space” (1995) and Knowledge Assets (1998)] makes the point that companies need to use both hoarding strategies, in which they place defensive barriers around what they know and focus on exploitation, and sharing strategies, where knowledge is shared within and outside the organization with the intent of increasing the volume of opportunities, with the strategic advantage shifting to speed of exploitation of knowledge.” This movement may be taken to be the most important for anybody trying to support other people’s use of new tools and methodologies: Listen! Listen to the feeling needs of others, don’t administer, try to minister.

Immunization

Immunization

Immunization aims at moving from the structured/hierarchical to the unstructured/heterarchical, temporarily. This can be taken to be an experiment; a smaller “visit” to chaos in order to shake up “the way things are” in such a way, that one is forced to reflect. However the visit will be short enough so that it will not destabilize the entire system (or project). This serves two purposes, Snowden & Kurtz write (2003, p. 479): “First, it inures people to the devastating force of chaos so that they will be better prepared to face those forces in the future. A perfect example: it is said that the great director Buster Keaton was able to craft his death-defying stunts (such as a house falling around him, a rescue from a drenching waterfall, amazing pratfalls, and so on) because as a toddler he was lifted out of bed by a tornado and set down unhurt in the street. Second, immunization brings new perspectives, which cause radical disruptions in stable patterns of thought and lead to new

22/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

complex patterns. Examples of such events are scattered throughout literature, in the accident that changes a politician's career, or the chance encounter that causes a lonely woman's life to fill up with new meaning, or in many other kinds of radical departures that make everything on which one had relied seem meaningless and restricting. Metaphors and Narratives are particularly useful agents of immunization because they allow conversation about painful things, enable disruptive and lateral thinking, prevent entrainment of attitudes, and clear out the cobwebs of stagnant ways.” An important lesson is needed here. Stories and biographies by participants can be examples of longings – not for chaos – but for imaging other ways of acting, thinking and feeling; in fact for social learning. So narratives and metaphors may inspire, may express hopes and trust; yet may have to be carefully brought back to reality. 4.6 USE OF MOVEMENTS IN SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE IN PRACTICE The use of these ten boundary transitions rely on narratives in networks, organizations or projects. As we aim for social learning, employment and a work-life balance for an ageing workforce, narratives of the changes taking place, participants’ own generative thematic universe and changes taking place in the minds of the participants are both at the utmost important. Metaphors and narratives may be saved and used to generate a shared language about change in both themes and minds. They should not, however, be allowed to stabilize into expectations; they must remain fluid to be useful. So it is a good idea to collect experiences, narratives, stories and reflections based on potential movements by the roadmaps. In that way we get qualitative material along with the more formal evaluations on the roadmaps. In short: a social learning curve.

23/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

5. CONCLUSION The integrated roadmap consists of three main steps: • • •

First a positioning in the social learning space. Second a positioning in the inquiring system framework on factors in a CWE. Third a dialogue and reflection and imagination among participants on where – and why - they want to move from here. As a help movements in the social learning space along with potential CWE/ICT are offered.

By applying the tools and methodologies the participants can move freely in different directions, yet they can identify and read the roadmap of the landscape in such a way that they can move towards the ideal of creating social learning in a heterarchical context and handling unstructured, wicked problems.

24/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

6. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS -

Boisot, M. (1998): Knowledge Assets, Oxford University Press

-

Churchman, C.W (1971): The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books

-

Kurtz, C.F. & Snowden, D. (2003): The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex andcomplicated world, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3

-

Mason, I.& Mitroff (1973): A program for research on management information systems,Management Science 19 (5).

-

Snowden, D. (2002): Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, No. 2

-

Spivack, Novo: New Version of My "Metaweb" Graph -- The Future of the Net, Blog April 21, 2005

See also the eSangathan library.

25/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

Appendix - Modes of Generating Evidence This appendix is based on Courtney, James F., Croasdell, David T. & Paradice, David B.: Inquiring Organizations. Australian Journal of Information Systems, Number 1, September 1998. We have taken the words from the article as they give a clear, comprehensive and concise picture of the meaning of these different modes of generating evidence. We are aware, that they are based on Western philosophers only. But we hope that the reader may generate other modes of evidence based on other paradigms. The Lockian Inquirer Inquiring systems based on Lockian reasoning are experimental and consensual. Empirical information, gathered from external observations, is used inductively to build a representation of the world. Elementary sense observations form the input to the Lockian inquirer which has a basic set of labels (or properties) which it assigns to the inputs. The Lockian system is also capable of observing its own process by means of "reflection" and backwards tracing of labels to the most elementary labels. Agreement on the labels by the Lockian community is the guarantor of the system. The Leibnizian Inquirer A Leibnizian inquiring system is a closed system with a set of built-in elementary axioms that are used along with formal logic to generate more general fact nets or tautologies. The fact nets are created by identifying hypotheses, each new hypothesis being tested to ensure that it could be derived from, and is consistent with, the basic axioms. Once so verified, the hypothesis becomes a new fact within the system. The guarantor of the system is the internal consistency and comprehensiveness of the generated facts. The Kantian Inquirer The Kantian system is a mixture of the Leibnitzian and Lockian approaches in the sense that it contains both theoretical and empirical components. The empirical component is capable of receiving inputs, so the system is open. It generates hypotheses on the basis of inputs received. Perhaps the most unique feature of Kantian systems is that the theoretical component allows an input to be subjected to different interpretations. This occurs because the Kantian theoretical component maintains alternative models of the world (alternative world views). Representations and interpretations are based on causal connections maintained in the models. The theoretical component contains a model building constituent, which constructs Leibnizian fact nets. It tests the alternatives by determining the best "fit" for the data, and the guarantor in this approach is the degree of model/data agreement. The use of alternative models permits, for example, one piece of economic data to be interpreted differently by different econometric models (e.g., competing models proposed by different political parties). Additionally, an "executive routine" turns the Kantian models on and off and can examine their outputs in terms of the degree of satisfaction with their interpretations. Thus, if a model is not producing satisfactory results it can be turned off, while those which are more successful proceed.

26/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved

The Hegelian Inquirer Hegelian systems function on the premise that greater enlightenment results from the conflict of ideas. The Hegelian dialectic is comprised of three major players. The first player begins the dialectic with a strong conviction about a fundamental thesis. This player or subject, besides holding a strong belief in the thesis, constructs a view of the world in such a way that information, when interpreted through this world view, maximizes support for the thesis. The second player is an observer of the first subject. The observer generates an opposing conviction to the original thesis. In fact, the observer is "passionately dedicated to destruction of the first subject's conviction" (Churchman, 1971, p. 173). The final player in the Hegelian dialectic is a "bigger" mind and an opposition to the conflict between the thesis and the antithesis. This "bigger" mind synthesizes a new (larger) view of the world which absorbs the thesis/antithesis conflict. Synthesis generated by the objective "bigger" mind acts as guarantor of the system. Objectivity is based on a kind of interconnection of observers (Churchman, 1971, p. 149). They promise that "the movement from thesis-antithesis to synthesis is a soaring to greater heights, to self-awareness, more completeness, betterment, progress" (Churchman, 1971, p. 186). The Singerian Inquirer Two basic premises guide Singerian inquiry (Churchman, 1971, pp. 189-191). The first premise establishes a system of measures that specify steps to be followed in resolving disagreements among members of a community. Measures can be transformed and compared where appropriate. The measure of performance is the degree to which differences among group member's opinions can be resolved by the measuring system. A key feature of the measuring system is its ability to replicate its results to ensure consistency. The second principle guiding Singerian inquiry is the strategy of agreement (p. 199). Disagreement may occur for various reasons, including the different training and background of observers and inadequate explanatory models. When models fail to explain a phenomenon, new variables and laws are "swept in" to provide guidance and overcome inconsistencies. Yet, disagreement is encouraged in Singerian inquiry. It is through disagreement that world views come to be improved. Complacency is avoided by continuously challenging system knowledge. Singerian inquiry provides the capability to choose among a system of measures to create insight and build knowledge. A simplistic optimism drives the community toward continuous improvement of measures. However, the generation of knowledge can move the community away from reality and towards its own form of illusion if not carefully monitored.

27/27 © eSangathan Consortium 2008

All rights reserved