Ergon – a learning network
Learning in network
The Ergon-project aims at improving knowledge about Practice Firms by sharing, developing and
utilizing knowledge - together and in a network.
Learning, as well as competence, and knowledge are important concepts in the project. It is
therefore necessary for the participants to agree on how to define these concepts. Researchers work
with that, and they have very many different definitions. Examples can be found in the papers in the
repository1. From this follows that it is not important for the project to spend much time on
discussing definitions. The Ergon- project is about development, not research.
The Ergon-project is about knowledge and Knowledge Management. As illustrated in Irmgarda
Kasinskaité2, knowledge can be handled at different levels:



A macro level covering what the EU or the individual member states focus on in order to be
competitive (for instance compared to the US etc.)
A general level focusing on how regional areas (by forming clusters) or organisations
focusing on intellectual capital, and
A micro level where groups like for instance Communities of Practice can be found.
In the Ergon-project both an electronic platform and personal meetings are elements. This means
that both American and Japanese approaches3 are …..
Tacit and Explicit knowledge are heavily discussed issues – also in the Ergon-project. A more
detailed description is in Sanchez’s article4.
Whether we talk about data, information or knowledge is not important as long as we know what
we means by these concepts. They are certainly defined, and not least used in many different ways.
That is also the case in the articles in Ergon’s repository. One way of defining these concepts goes
like this:



Data is all what we can sense, all around us – whether we notice it or not
Information is data that we 1) notice, and 2) choose to work with – to some extent5
Knowledge is what we get out of working with the information, related to the knowledge we
had beforehand, and the ambitions we may have with working on it
“Basic concepts about competencies”, and “What is Knowledge Management?”
“Managing Knowledge Assets between the global and the local” (Lithuanian folder)
3
“Knowledge Management and Knowledge Creation Management” (Portuguese folder)
4
“Tacit knowledge” versus “Explicit knowledge” (Danish folder)
5
Bateson’s definition: In formation is a difference, that makes a difference
1
2
1
Seen this way knowledge cannot be shared directly but we can certainly learn from each other, we
can get new and better knowledge by co-operating with each other, and we can create new
knowledge together, and finally make use of it.
In the Ergon-project the creation of new knowledge is important. As illustrated in Boisot et al.6 it is
to a large extend about crossing boundaries between:




Possible worlds, consisting of all the possibilities except from what is found “not-possible”
Plausible worlds, being the things people find plausible, and believe in – now that they come
across it, hear about is, come to think about it etc.
Probable worlds, which are what has been proves probable by using different techniques,
tests, methods etc. Justified could be the word of it
Actual worlds are worlds where possible things are also plausible (you believe in it), and
probable (tested and justified).
And it is about finding the actual worlds – also in the Ergon-project.
The Ergon-project - how to learn?
In many cases people find that knowledge is something that is transferred from one person (with
more-knowledge) to others (with less knowledge). Such a transformation could be called “vertical
learning”. It is a very common way of setting up learning environments – it is normally called
teaching, instruction etc.
The Ergon-project is not such a project. It is a self-organised group with the ambition to learn
together, and based on their professional expertise, and their organisational practice. They learn
from each other, and they try to improve their practice at the same time. This way of learning could
be called “horizontal learning”. They are all experts, they all have something to contribute with,
they can all learn something – and a lot of knowledge sharing takes place at the same time.
To a large extent this is what Etienne Wenger (2002) calls a Community of Practice (CoP),
consisting of:



People sharing a specific practice either in the same company or (like PF-trainers) share a
practice but work in different organisations (like ERGON-project members).
With the motivation and interest to work together in order to get a better knowledge
together, and
Organised in such a way that ideas, papers, models, tools etc. are actually shared
The new thing about CoPs is not the existence but the fact that organisations have identified their
existence and started considering the value (for the organisation) of such Communities of Practice.
“Crossing Epistemological Boundaries: Managerial and Entrepreneurial Approaches to Knowledge Management”
(Spanish folder)
6
2
CoPs and Knowledge Management in the Ergon-project
Knowledge Management is a concept for getting information from outside, to make knowledge
from that information, to share results among people involved, and to enable also the creation of
new knowledge, based on peoples both explicit and tacit knowledge7.
Seen this way CoPs could be seen as part of a Knowledge Management system in which knowledge
is considered: “justified true belief” (von Krogh et al., 2000), meaning that “knowledge is a
construction of reality rather than something that is true in any abstract and universal way”. And it
is also what Boisot et al. call “Actual world”.
According to Smith & McKeen (2003a) learning from each other is about:




Best practices – to transfer what works well to other parts of the firm – or network
Expertise – to develop certain skills and capabilities and to get more experts than they have
already
Experience – to learn from each other instead of joining classes at school and/or college
Innovation – “…to stimulate the development of new ideas, and also to motivate their
organisations to become more responsive to change”
The Ergon-project therefore should work on sharing “best practice”, develop new experts by using
each other, share experience in the Ergon-group as well as between PF-trainers in partner-countries,
and to develop new ideas in the Practice Firm field.
In a permanent organisation as well as in the Ergon-project (as an ad hoc organisation) it is
necessary to tune the organisation to creating new knowledge. Von Krogh et al (2000) points out,
that so-called knowledge-enablers can help the process:





Instill a vision
Manage conversation
Mobilize activists
Create the right context
Globalize local knowledge
This means that important issues must go through knowledge creation steps:





Sharing tacit knowledge
Creating concepts
Justifying a concept
Building a prototype
Cross-levelling knowledge
7
Tacit knowledge is the knowledge, people are not aware of but nevertheless use in their own practice, whereas explicit
knowledge is what can be exchanged, and transferred from a technological instrument to people, from one person to
another etc.
3
All together it means that the Ergon-project must work according to the vision, using technology
and personal meetings for that purpose, and try to work concrete with tasks and assignments, and by
doing that sharing and developing new knowledge in the area of Practice Firms.
A knowledge-sharing culture – how is it?
Whether it is called Knowledge Management or CoP, knowledge sharing is a very important issue.
The most important element in establishing a knowledge-sharing practice seems to be the culture of
the organisation (Smith & McKeen, 2003c).
In their work on Knowledge Management Smiths & McKeen (Ibid) found four categories of factors
either stimulating or inhibiting knowledge-sharing:




Social
Organisational
Managerial
Technical
Ad social
It seems to be the case (Ibid) that most knowledge is shared socially. Most information stems from
face-to-face meeting and people are much more likely to turn to friends and colleagues for answers
to their problems. It is worth noting because “too often knowledge transfer has been confined to
such concepts as improved access, electronic communication, and document repositories”
(Davenport, 1994).
The social factor is also important because “people will not share with those they don’t trust either
by reputation or expertise” (Smith & McKeen, 2003c), and is one reason why “…technical
knowledge-sharing solutions often work poorly on their own” (Ibid).
One of the most emphasised aspects in many interviews with knowledge-management people is that
“knowledge must be useful if sharing is to occur, that is, if information is to be both sought and
utilized”. Another aspect is that it is people themselves who decide what is important and worth
sharing.
How is that in the Ergon-project?
Ad organisational
Organisational aspects involve:





Recognition and incentives
The role of information in the organisation
Governance and accountability structures
Where knowledge resources are spent
How the organisation’s processes integrate knowledge
4
According to focus-groups participants the main factors are: 1) rewards and 2) recognition and
monitoring. Both can work as inhibitors as well as promoters. Also the facilitation of knowledge
work is important – for instance the organisation’s efforts on making information useful and
accessible. It is worth noting that procedures and technologies must not be too complicated.
Being not an organisation as such, what can the Ergon-project do with this in order to handle it?
Ad managerial
Although knowledge sharing in many cases is something taking place between employers in the
organisation, the management plays an important role, for instance in leading knowledge sharing by
example (Smith & McKeen, 2003c). Managers can also either facilitate or inhibit knowledge
sharing by using rewards and incentives in different ways.
Another very important point is what management pays attention to. If management shows that
knowledge-sharing is important, and proves that it is useful as well, a large step has been taken
towards a culture of knowledge-sharing.
The Ergon-project is not an organisation but rather a network – with a chairperson,
responsible for the whole thing. What can be done in order to work with
knowledge sharing in networks?
Ad technical
“The last, and probably least important motivator of knowledge-sharing behavior is technology”
(Ibid).
On the other hand there is a synergistic relationship between technology and Knowledge
Management. Technology helps and supports communication – especially if the groups who need to
share knowledge are separated in time and space.
One of the participants of the mentioned focus-group interview (Ibid.) stated that: “The key is to
build islands of sharing, and then to build bridges between the islands”. In such cases technology
seems to be a very useful tool.
What can be done in the project to ensure that the electronic platform is better used?
Competence
Both Knowledge Management and Communities of Practice have to do with gaining the right
competence for the organisation.
Competence could be defined as: The approved ability to do things in practice. It goes for
organisations, groups and/or individuals. And it emphasises that context is included, meaning that
what you can do in one context not necessarily can be transferred to another.
5
Three questions are relevant here: In what context can it be done? How well can it be done? And
who can do it?
According to Hamel & Prahalad (1994) competence is what an organisation must be able to do in
order to deliver its core-product(s). In order to be competitive the organisation must be able to do
very well and better than competitors. If so, it is called core-competence, and that will almost
always consist of a good deal tacit knowledge. If not it is too easy to duplicate by competitors.
Drejer & Riis (Drejer, 2001) have almost the same view on competence. In their opinion it consists
of what is needed to produce, and that involves:




People
Culture
Organisation
Technology
This also means that what people need to be able to (people’s competence) depends on what culture
they live and work in, how the company is organised and what technology is used.
Seen this way competence can be what people under given conditions (the context) must be able to
do, and/or what an organisation (as such) must be able to do in order to deliver its core-products.
In the US (and sometimes in Australia) the word “competency” is reserved for doing well (Spencer
& Spencer, 1993). In other countries “competence” must therefore be supplied by a level in order to
give the same information.
The word as such is complicated and not very easy to work with. Some would say (Clematide,
2002) that you normally can read from the context how competence is understood. Is it about what
kind of competence-work, for what group of people?:
Development
of competence
Criteria for required
competence
Individuals
Groups
Organisations
Trades
Societies
6
Assessment of
competence
Seen this way it is important to know what is meant by competence in the actual situation, not so
much to find a specific and generally shared definition8
In many cases, and also in the Ergon-project, “competence” is related to what people should be able
to do and/or what they actually can do. Although it is defined that way “competence” still is what a
person can do, in a specific situation (a context). So what one trainer should be able to do in his/her
practice is not necessarily the same as another trainer have to deliver in another context etc.
In the Ergon-project focus is on criteria for “a good PF-trainer”. After having done that on how to
develop PF-trainer’s competence.
One good question could be whether results from questionnaires move things into “the actual
world”, and not just to a “probable world” (justified), which is not “plausible” (true).
Literature
Bateson, G. (1979) Mind and Nature a Necessary Unity, New York: Ballantine
Brown, J. & S. Gray (1995) “The people are the Company” Fast Company
Clematide, Bruno (2002) ”Samtaler om kvalifikationer, kompetencer og læring” In: Illeris, Knud
(red.) Udspil om læring i arbejdslivet. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetsforlag (only in Danish).
Dixon, Nancy (2000) Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Drejer, Anders (2001) ”Organisational learning and competence development”. The Learning
Organisation, Vol 7, Issue 4
Dreyfus H.L. & S. Dreyfus (1986) Mind over machine. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Hamel, Gary & C.K. Prahalad (1994) Competing for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press
Krogh, G. von, K. Ichijo & I. Nonaka (2000) Enabling knowledge creation. How to unlock the
mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Nonaka, I. & H. Takeuchi (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company. How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Petrides, Lisa A. & Thad R. Nodine (2003) “Knowledge Management in Education. Defining the
Landscape” The Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education”. www.iskme.org
Polanyi, Michael (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Garden City N.Y.: Doubleday
Revans, Reginald W. (1982) Action Learning. Lund: Studentlitteratur
Rummler, Geary A. & Alan P. Brache (1995) Improving Performance. How to Manage the White
Space on the Organization Chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
Sanchet, Ron (2003) “Tacit knowledge versus Explicit knowledge. Approaches to Knowledge
Management Practice”
Smith, Heather A. & James D. McKeen (2003a) “Knowledge Transfer: Can KM Make it Happen?”
WP 03-05 Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises. http://www.business.queensu.ca.kbe
Smith, Heather A. & James D. McKeen (2003b) “Creating and Facilitating Communities of
Practice” WP 03-09 Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises.
http://www.business.queensu.ca.kbe
8
And there is no such definition
7
Smith, Heather A. & James D. McKeen (2003c) “Instilling a Knowledge-Sharing Culture” WP 0311 Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises. http://www.business.queensu.ca.kbe
Spencer, Lyle M. & Signe M. Spencer (1993) Competence at Work. New York: John Wiley &
sions, Inc.
Wenger, Etienne (1998) Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Wenger, Etienne, Richard McDermott & William M. Snyder (2002) Cultivating Communities of
Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Wenger, Etienne, Richard McDermott & William M. Snyder (2002) Cultivating Communities of
Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
8