esangathan integrated roadmaps

8/14/2019 eSangathan Integrated Roadmaps

1/27

1/27 eSangathan Consort ium 2008 All rights reserved

Integrated Roadmaps

byLei f Bloch RASMUSSEN and Vikt or ia SKARLER(Copenhagen Business School )

eSangathan is a FP6 EU-funded project with the following consortium :

DISTANCE EXPERT Project CoordinatorContact: Nicole TURB-SUETENS

AGEPROOFContact: Marianne ZIEKEMEYER

COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOLContact:Leif Bloch RASMUSSEN

FOLKUNIVERSITETETContact: Martina Sophia BACH

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LimitedContact: Mandar VARTAK

NETCIPIAContact: Miguel MEMBRADO

TECHMAHINDRA LimitedContact: Chitresh MARKANDA

www.esangathan.eu
http://www.distance-expert.com/QuickPlace/distance/Main.nsf/h_Toc/bf84d9b3c54e6607c1256eb300289fb0/?OpenDocumentmailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitemailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.ageproof.nl/mailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://uk.cbs.dk/mailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitemailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.folkuniversitetet.se/templates/Page.aspx?id=3460mailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.mahindra.com/mailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.netcipia.net/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHomemailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.techmahindra.com/index.htmmailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.esangathan.eu/http://www.esangathan.eu/http://www.esangathan.eu/mailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.techmahindra.com/index.htmmailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.netcipia.net/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHomemailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.mahindra.com/mailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.folkuniversitetet.se/templates/Page.aspx?id=3460mailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://uk.cbs.dk/mailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.ageproof.nl/mailto:[email protected]?subject=eSangathan%20websitehttp://www.distance-expert.com/QuickPlace/distance/Main.nsf/h_Toc/bf84d9b3c54e6607c1256eb300289fb0/?OpenDocument


2/27


TABLE OF CONTENTS

WHAT YOU WILL FIND IN THIS DOCUMENT ................................................................ 3

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 4

2. OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................. 6

3. INTEGRATED ROADMAP .................................................................................. 73.1 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 ......................................154.1 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HIERARCHY-UNSTRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL BOUNDARY 154.2 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL BOUNDARY 174.3 MOVEMENT AT THE UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL BOUNDARY 174.4 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL-CHAOTIC BOUNDARY 194.5 MOVEMENTS IN CHAOS 204.6 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


3/27


WHAT YOU WILL FIND IN THIS DOCUMENT

This deliverable shows the experiences and development gained from the two pilots in theeSangathan projects: Mahindra&Mahindra and resund Pilot. It integrates these experiences anddevelopments into a suggestion for an Integrated Roadmap for eInclusion for an ageingworkforce. Its starting point is the original joint work plan and the roadmaps planned for theeSangathan 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 challengesfacing an ageing workforce.

A suggestion for a integrated roadmap based on three pillars of ICT/CWE, InformationalConnectivity and Informational connectivity is put forward strongly supported by experiencesfrom the two eSangathan pilots. A roadmap aiming at both liberation and immunization inhandling ICT/CWE or any methodology or tool - for supporting an ageing workforce in aglobalized 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 onexperiences from the two eSangathan Pilots.


4/27


1. INTRODUCTION

In the final roadmap1 we described how the overall roadmap and the specific roadmaps oncommunication, collaboration, social learning and business modelling had been used and howthey had been changes during the work in the two pilots: Mahindra&Mahindra Pilot and resundPilot. After the evaluation of the pilots and the specific evaluation of ICT/CWE used2 and based

on the evaluation of the methodologies and tools used for social learning we now turn back andtry to summarize experiences and evaluation into an Integrated Roadmap. This roadmap wasoriginally planned as a roadmap for working together in the future across countries, continentsand cultures by experimenting and drawing good practices on the methodologies foremployment, social learning and ICT/CWE for an ageing workforce. We hope this integratedversion will be able to contribute to that effort and bring the Indian and resund Pilotspractices, experiences and reflections together into a single framework. We still believe thatthis 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 simplereason that the Indian Pilot focused on what during the lifespan of the project have come to becalled the Informational connectivity while the resund Pilot focused more on Social

Connectivity. An integrating tool - a wiki-solution - was tried out and it still gives hope for thefuture, especially as we realize, that the CWE solution in the two pilots as well as the culture-crossing wiki-solution were attempts at WEB 2.0 solution for cross cultural communication. Butwhat turned out of this experiment was that the integration of social- and informationalconnectivity via CWE/ICT was lacking and may have await a deeper and broader understandingof 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 twopilots only took place via the leaders of the two pilots and a meeting between one resundPilot participant and the Indian Pilot participants during the conference in Mumbai. Whethermore face-to-face meetings would have helped cannot be answered by the data available formthe pilots, but we suspect it would.

That said, the Integrated Roadmap will still be based on the Joint Work Plan and themethodologies and CWE/ICT depicted there. However it will now take the form of a normativedescription of movements in a Social Learning Space of the potentials in Informational and Socialconnectivity supported by CWE/ICT.

The overall normative movement also are still aiming at supporting an ageing workforce (andother humans in- or outside the workforce as well) to work and make a difference in handling

1 Deliverable D028.2 Deliverables D031 for the ICT/CWE, D035/36 for the resund Pilot, D037/D038 for the

Mahindra&Mahindra Pilot.


5/27


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


6/27


2. OBJECTIVE

The objective is to redefine the overall roadmap of the eSangathan project in such a way that itmay 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 specificroadmap. It is to be taken as an inspiration, not a prescription that has to be followed step-by-step.


7/27


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 undefinedtwo times two matrixes by Miguel Membrado. He depicted the road we would have to follow inorder to cope with the challenges in a globalized knowledge-based world. This movement isshown in fig.1:

Figure 1 - Attempted movement in eSangathan

Web 2.0

Direction(Hierarchy)

Unstructured(Wicked)

Problems/Context

StructuredProblems/Context

Participation(Self-Organizing

It consists of two dimensions:

Structured problems wicked/unstructured problems, where we look at challenges asconsisting of solvable problems at the one end and un-solvable problems at the otherend

Hierarchical Context Heterarchical Context, where attempts to formulate and solveproblems are formed. At the one end we have a hierarchical context where directionsare given form outside and above, and at the other end we have a heterarchical


8/27


context, where there are no directions, but participation and self-organizing areneeded.

These two dimensions have been reframed by two other dimensions during the lifespan of theproject:

Informational Connectivity, where overview and consistency of information areimportant together with semantics

Social Connectivity, where social cohesion among people and in society are importanttogether with pragmatics

At the same time we have used the experiences in the pilots together with the work of theCynefin Centre in Wales (see Kurtz, C.F. & Snowden, D. (2003) and Snowden, D. (2002) toconnect value making, relation making, decision making and sense making into a social learningspace as shown in fig. 2.

Figure 2 Overall aim of movement in informational and social connectivity


9/27


Quadrant 4

Unstructured/Heterarchical

Chaos knowing Uncharted innovative Temporary Communities Disruptive Space No cause and effect relationships

perceivable

Stability-focused intervention Enactment tools Crisis management Act-Sense-RespondWeak Central-Weak Distributed

power over knowing creation and

sharing

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

Quadrant 2

Unstructured/Hierarchical

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-StrongDistributed power over knowing

creation and sharing

InformationalConnectivity

SocialConnectivity

Quadrant 3

Structured/Heterarchical

Complex knowingInformal IndependentThe informal organizationSocial NetworksCause and effect are only coherentin retrospect and do not repeat

Pattern managementPerspective FiltersComplex adaptive systemsProbe-Sense-Respond

Weak Central, Strong Distributed

power over knowing creation

and sharing

Quadrant 1

Structured/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

Strong Central-Weak

Distributed power over knowing

creation and sharing


10/27


Figure 3 - Social Learning Space

Participation(Self-Organizin gHeterarchies)

StructuredProblems/Context

Unstructured(Wicked)

Problems/Context

Direction(Hierarchy)

WEB 2.0WEB 3.0

Informationalconnectivity

SocialConnectivity

In this image it is the hypothesis that moving from hierarchy to heterarchy can bringsocial connectivity about at the same time as moving from handling structured problemstowards handling un-structured (wicked) problems can bring informational connectivityabout. Both these movements can be supported by ICT/CWE. The challenge is to find aproper 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.


11/27


3.1.2 INQUIRING SYSTEMS IN A KNOWLEDGE BASED SOCIETY

The second part of the methodology in the overall roadmap consists in finding and elaboratingon the ones position in the Inquiring Systems thinking in the Informational Age. In this we take aCollaborative Working Environment (CWE) to consist of, at least some persons of a certainInquiring Types who faces Problems within some Organizational Context for which they needEvidence 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


12/27


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 thesefactors into account is not possible. A simple count will give 2048 combinations. The same holdsfor designing and implementing methodologies that would suit any constellation of a pilot. Thecomplexity 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 andimpersonalistic} may best describe quadrant 1 situations. At the other end a constellation of{feeling-intuition, unstructured (wicked), kantian/hegelian/singer-churchmanian andpersonalistic} could describe the situation in quadrant 4. The first crucial issue is of course theinquiring types. In ICT/CWE in the age of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 it seems as if theextrovert/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 evidence3. The original work of Mason and Mitroff (1973)is based on Churchmans book from 1971: Design of Inquiring Systems. In this a Western way ofthinking (and feeling) on modes of evidence is used based on five prominent Westernphilosophers. 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 & Mitroffs arguments.

Thus the Leibnizian and Lockian modes of evidence based on logic and data respectively canbe used in the quadrant 1. And again in at the other extreme in quadrant 4Singerian/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.


13/27


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

InformationalConnectivit

IntrovertSensationThinkin

Extrovert

IntuitionFeelingPerce tion

Hierarchie

Heterarchie

SocialConnectivit

In fig. 4 it is the hypothesis that a general movement for the knowledge based society should beto expand from the lower left corner towards the upper left corner and that thesemovements 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 twopilots) will show, that participants have strong opinions on these issues of they are brought tothe 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 anytheoretical issue on the matter of ageing workforce and CWE/ICT. They demanded a more orless clear cut picture of the benefit they might get out of the project. Being part of anexperiment even for real was OK, but all took it to be a method/tool for their own specificgoal. Any vision on social and informational connectivity or move in the Social Learning Spacewas very much influenced by the mental models that the participants had on the work-lifebalance. So the attempt to use theory as a support for their overall move in work-life was takento be interesting even to the point of exciting but most of all threatening.

InformationalConnectivity

4 See delieverable D044.


14/27


So the normative statement for the integrated roadmap is that any attempt to use ICT/CWE forthe benefit of an ageing work force must have a clear focus on the wishes for work-life balancein 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 youin 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 ones own place andones own experiences. Thereby we do not make any suggestions and/or recommendations onhow to bring a movement in the social learning space about. There is a dilemma involved inasking humans to change, for example their inquiring style and their preferred mode ofevidence. A challenge that is implicit in moves in the social learning space. Whether humanswant to embark on that journey at the present moment of their work-life balance is a questionwe are not equipped to answer.


15/27


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 ownexperiences 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 workingand leadership style. Understanding the differences among the different movements in theroadmap changes the responses of participants to.

In general, one of the functions of the roadmaps is to increase the awareness of the upper rightquadrant 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 formovements are described to make the upper right quadrant more accessible, yet acceptingdeviances and set-back on the road. In a way the descriptions may also serve to set up warningsigns, when we move too far away from the general roadmap in fig. 3. Because each quadranthas 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 eSangathanproject, but also for explicating possibilities for future movements. The description is based onexperiences from eSangathan as individuals trying to establish a network and employmentpossibilities in the resund Pilot and employees in Mahindra & Mahindra aiming at transferringknowledge to their company before retirement.

4.1 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HIERARCHY-UNSTRUCTURED/HETERARCHICALBOUNDARY


16/27


Collapse

Collapse

This boundary is very strong, and trying to cross it too soon may cause a communication breakdown. 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 advancetoo fast and straightforward towards the goal in quadrant 4. On the other hand, if the situationis too stable in quadrant 1 one might never get moving. So an advice could be to tell about thepossibilities in quadrant 4 and tell about the tools to be used in full flourish there, but only usingpart of the tools. But most important is that moving towards informational connectivity is theeasiest 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 theparticipants hard- and soft skills may support the informational connectivity as they canexchange data, ideas and experiences without having to get too involved in understanding therelations in the group. Moving too fast into use of a CWE might make any network ororganization to collapse.

A dialogue on the twelve questions in Inquiring Systems and the Socratic Dialogue may supportthis movement, yet it cannot be carried out unless participants open their hearts and mindtowards each other.

Imposition

Imposition

This movement goes from the unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/hierarchical. Itcould be advisable if some of the participants feel that they are in a chaotic situation, or if someactually 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 thatin turn becomes more rigid until the movement can start again towards quadrant 4.

As Snowden and Kurtz wrote (2003, p. 476):


17/27


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 well-intentioned revolutionaries sometimes put into place bureaucracies even more stifling thanthose they overthrew. However, we do not mean to imply that all such transitions arepathological. 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 authorityand respect, or a policeman calm a panicked crowd, can understand the utility of imposed yetwell-placed order.

4.2 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICALBOUNDARY

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

Incremental improvement

This is movement from the unstructured/hierarchical to the structured/hierarchical and backagain. It is the normal way of creating technological and economic growth. However, it canbecome a movement between structured/hierarchical and unstructured/hierarchical that neverdeparts from well observed and documented reality.

Incremental

Improvement

Team Syntegrity may get this move running as it is build on the knowing of each participant andcan bring them into a search for what is knowable. However it presupposes time for reflectionand time social face-to-face meetings.

4.3 MOVEMENT AT THE UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICALBOUNDARY

The boundary between the unstructured/hierarchical and structured/heterarchical can be afruitful one and in practice it complements the structured/hierarchical-unstructured/hierarchical border as an engine of new ideas and social learnings. It is not as fluid


18/27


19/27


for the representation and use in solving unstructured problems in a hierarchical way, i.e. byreducing complexity through the use of simplified models.

In fact it would attempt like it often happens to find out a new model outside the normalhierarchy and apply it. Resistance towards change might occur, but it can be overcome byChange Management.

A warning however may be important: This movement may call for using simplified models oforganization 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 eventsfor 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 andin fact difficult to delineate. It mirrors that crossing of the structured/hierarchical-unstructured/hierarchical boundary in two ways: the first one is the engine for technological andeconomic learning, and the other is the engine for organizational and social learning. So we canuse 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/heterarchicaland from there to the unstructured/hierarchical. This represents crossing the boundary betweenchaos 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 moremanageable. A transition from the unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/heterarchical isa matter of creating multiple attractive ideas, swarming points, around which un-order caninstantiate itself, whereas a transition from the unstructured/heterarchical to thestructured/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, thenwe 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 theunstructured/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


20/27


complexity is exactly part of the problem. A deeper warning is that being or at leastthinking/feeling to imagine to be able to act in a unstructured/heterarchical setting may closeones eyes for tradition and the iron law of oligarchy. We may be thinking and feeling that weare saved in bringing around new technology, new worlds, new learning. Yet: is this learningreally warranted?

Again the Inquiring Systems Approach and the Socratic Dialogue could support managers andresearchers awareness on their own firms institutional beliefs and idiosyncrasies.

Divergence

Convergence

Divergence-convergence

This is a movement from the structured/heterarchical to the unstructured/heterarchical andback again.

Snowden & Kurtz writes (2003, p. 477):

The active disruption of a complex system to precipitate its move to chaos is less of a changethan moving it to either of the ordered domains, and this is easier to manage across a permeableboundary. In knowledge management, for example, informal communities that occupy thestructured/heterarchical domain are more resilient when asked to undergo radical disruption inan learning program than the expert communities of the unstructured/hierarchical domain.Small start-up companies handle disruption better than large bureaucratic ones, but even withinlarge bureaucratic organizations, there are small groups that can act in the role of start-ups, andthey 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 theirunstructured heterarchical imagined projects, ideas, visions even to the point of beingmissionaries. They as we as partners try to get other people on board out own dream ofmaking 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


21/27


in order to create social learning in work, life and use of CWE/ICT. Roads that might uproot thesystem. They write (2003, p. 478):

There are may be good reasons to move deliberately from order to chaos. There are timeswhen it is necessary to break rigid structures in precipitation of a natural collapse (as oneapproaches the boundary), so that the transition can be managed more carefully; and there aretimes when a strong disruption is the only mechanism that will break up a strong but unhealthystability. The last three movement types we will consider use the chaotic space for temporarydisruption 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 tocreate chaos; or break well-established patterns of understanding.

Entrainment breaking

Entrainment breaking is a movement from the unstructured/hierarchical to theunstructured/heterarchical and from there onwards to the structured/heterarchical. Here wemove from the unstructured/hierarchical to unstructured/heterarchical and thus stimulate thecreation of new complex systems as the system rebounds into the structured/heterarchicaldomain.

Entrainment

Breaking

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 tochallenge at a more basic level the current assumptions of order. By using thestructured/heterarchical space as a staging post, we create a more fertile space of interactionsfrom which we can select stabilization points for the movement to theunstructured/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 andforceful aims by others to do, what not necessarily is ones own cause in life. Any of themethodologies and any of the tools in our attempt to get a so-called ageing workforce on boardICT/CWE both as a proper workforce and as human beings aiming at understanding and usingICT/CWE, can be taken to bring down these defences. We of course need good reasons forthis attack on peoples defences. Again dialogue and trust are of absolute necessity.

Liberation

Liberation


22/27


Liberation (or empowerment as many researchers would say) is a movement from thestructured/hierarchical to the structured/heterarchical and from there to theunstructured/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, anorganization that needs new expertise in an area might commission a university to carry out astudy, recruit specialist staff, or identify individuals within the organization and assign themnew responsibilities. This is a successful and effective strategy when the conditions are suitablefor ordered approaches. However, if the situation is uncertain, it is more useful to shift theproblem from the domain of the known [structured/hierarchical] to the knowable[structured/heterarchical]. Organizations need to increase both internal and external levels ofcontact to the point where new patterns can emerge. Boisot [in Information Space (1995) andKnowledge 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, andsharing strategies, where knowledge is shared within and outside the organization with theintent 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 otherpeoples use of new tools and methodologies: Listen! Listen to the feeling needs of others, dontadminister, try to minister.

Immunization

Immunization

Immunization aims at moving from the structured/hierarchical to theunstructured/heterarchical, temporarily. This can be taken to be an experiment; a smallervisit to chaos in order to shake up the way things are in such a way, that one is forced toreflect. 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 toface those forces in the future. A perfect example: it is said that the great director BusterKeaton was able to craft his death-defying stunts (such as a house falling around him, a rescuefrom a drenching waterfall, amazing pratfalls, and so on) because as a toddler he was lifted outof bed by a tornado and set down unhurt in the street. Second, immunization brings newperspectives, which cause radical disruptions in stable patterns of thought and lead to new


23/27


complex patterns. Examples of such events are scattered throughout literature, in the accidentthat changes a politician's career, or the chance encounter that causes a lonely woman's life tofill up with new meaning, or in many other kinds of radical departures that make everything onwhich one had relied seem meaningless and restricting.

Metaphors and Narratives are particularly useful agents of immunization because they allowconversation about painful things, enable disruptive and lateral thinking, prevent entrainment ofattitudes, and clear out the cobwebs of stagnant ways.

An important lesson is needed here. Stories and biographies by participants can be examples oflongings not for chaos but for imaging other ways of acting, thinking and feeling; in fact forsocial learning. So narratives and metaphors may inspire, may express hopes and trust; yet mayhave 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 orprojects. As we aim for social learning, employment and a work-life balance for an ageingworkforce, 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 utmostimportant.

Metaphors and narratives may be saved and used to generate a shared language about change inboth 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 potentialmovements by the roadmaps. In that way we get qualitative material along with the moreformal evaluations on the roadmaps. In short: a social learning curve.


24/27


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 spacealong 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 movetowards the ideal of creating social learning in a heterarchical context and handlingunstructured, wicked problems.


25/27


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 complexandcomplicated world, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3

- Mason, I.& Mitroff (1973): A program for research on management informationsystems,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.


26/27


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 concisepicture of the meaning of these different modes of generating evidence. We are aware, thatthey are based on Western philosophers only. But we hope that the reader may generate other

modes of evidence based on other paradigms.

The Lockian InquirerInquiring systems based on Lockian reasoning are experimental and consensual. Empiricalinformation, gathered from external observations, is used inductively to build a representationof the world. Elementary sense observations form the input to the Lockian inquirer which has abasic set of labels (or properties) which it assigns to the inputs. The Lockian system is alsocapable of observing its own process by means of "reflection" and backwards tracing of labels tothe most elementary labels. Agreement on the labels by the Lockian community is the guarantorof the system.

The Leibnizian InquirerA Leibnizian inquiring system is a closed system with a set of built-in elementary axioms that areused along with formal logic to generate more general fact nets or tautologies. The fact nets arecreated by identifying hypotheses, each new hypothesis being tested to ensure that it could bederived from, and is consistent with, the basic axioms. Once so verified, the hypothesis becomesa new fact within the system. The guarantor of the system is the internal consistency andcomprehensiveness of the generated facts.

The Kantian InquirerThe Kantian system is a mixture of the Leibnitzian and Lockian approaches in the sense that itcontains both theoretical and empirical components. The empirical component is capable ofreceiving 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 aninput to be subjected to different interpretations. This occurs because the Kantian theoreticalcomponent maintains alternative models of the world (alternative world views). Representationsand interpretations are based on causal connections maintained in the models. The theoreticalcomponent contains a model building constituent, which constructs Leibnizian fact nets. It teststhe alternatives by determining the best "fit" for the data, and the guarantor in this approach isthe degree of model/data agreement. The use of alternative models permits, for example, onepiece 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 ofsatisfaction with their interpretations. Thus, if a model is not producing satisfactory results itcan be turned off, while those which are more successful proceed.


27/27

The Hegelian InquirerHegelian systems function on the premise that greater enlightenment results from the conflict ofideas. The Hegelian dialectic is comprised of three major players. The first player begins thedialectic with a strong conviction about a fundamental thesis. This player or subject, besidesholding a strong belief in the thesis, constructs a view of the world in such a way thatinformation, when interpreted through this world view, maximizes support for the thesis. Thesecond player is an observer of the first subject. The observer generates an opposing convictionto the original thesis. In fact, the observer is "passionately dedicated to destruction of the firstsubject'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/antithesisconflict. 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). Theypromise that "the movement from thesis-antithesis to synthesis is a soaring to greater heights, toself-awareness, more completeness, betterment, progress" (Churchman, 1971, p. 186).

The Singerian InquirerTwo basic premises guide Singerian inquiry (Churchman, 1971, pp. 189-191). The first premiseestablishes a system of measures that specify steps to be followed in resolving disagreementsamong members of a community. Measures can be transformed and compared where

appropriate. The measure of performance is the degree to which differences among groupmember's opinions can be resolved by the measuring system. A key feature of the measuringsystem 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 ofobservers and inadequate explanatory models. When models fail to explain a phenomenon, newvariables and laws are "swept in" to provide guidance and overcome inconsistencies. Yet,disagreement is encouraged in Singerian inquiry. It is through disagreement that world viewscome 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 insightand build knowledge. A simplistic optimism drives the community toward continuousimprovement 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.

esangathan integrated roadmaps

Documents