Teaming

Teaming, according to Edmondson (2012) in her new book teaming, is viewed as a learning process involving "iterative cycles of communication, decision, action, and reflection" (p. 50).  From this organizational learning perspective, teaming is a dynamic process determined by the mindset and practices of teamwork - "teamwork on the fly" (p. 13). Here, teaming is the the change agent for the organization, the engine of organizational learning.

From my perspective, I viewed Edmondson's (2012) idea of teaming as that of an Action Research approach to addressing tasks, projects, or specific problems. Kurt Lewin, the father of social psychology, believed that action research would help resolve social conflict in the workplace, improving the overall human condition (Burnes, 2007). "Lewin believed that the key to achieving this was to facilitate group learning through democratic participation and so enable individuals to understand and restructure their perceptions of the world around them" (Burnes, 2007, p. 215).

Action research is the fundamental principle behind many models of change. French and Bell defined action research as:

"The process of systematically collecting research data about an ongoing system relative to some objective, goal, or need of that system; feeding these data back into the system; taking actions by altering selected variable within the system based both on the data and on hypotheses; and evaluating the results of actions by collecting more data" (cited in Rothwell & Sullivan, p. 42).

Edmondson (2012), expands on this action research model to include acceptance of the individual as well as including the collaborative efforts of the group.  This is reflected in the four specific behaviors for successful teaming that Edmondson (2012) provided:

• Speaking Up: Teaming depends on honest, direct conversation between individuals, including asking questions, seeking feedback, and discussing errors.
• Collaboration: Teaming requires a collaborative mindset and behaviors - both within and outside a given unit of teaming - to drive the process.
• Experimentation: Teaming requires a tentative, iterative approach to action that recognizes the novelty and uncertainty inherent in every interaction between individuals.
• Reflection: Teaming relies on the use of explicit observations, questions, and discussions of processes and outcomes. This must happen on a consistent basis that reflects the rhythm of the work , whether that calls for daily, weekly, or other project-specific timing (p. 52, Exhibit 2.1).

References:

Burnes, B. (2007). Kurl lewin and the hardwood studies: The foundation of OD. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 213-231.

Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rothwell, W. J., & Sullivan, R. (2005). Practicing Organization Development: A Guide for Consultants (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pheiffer.

Evaluation

Evaluation is often at the end of systematic performance models.  The Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model, sometimes referred to the ADDIE model, includes the following stages: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation.  Other disciplines practice models similar to the ADDIE model.  Six Sigma practices the DMAIC model: define, measure, analyze, improve, and control. In the DMAIC model measure would be comparable to evaluation.  Human Resource Development (HRD) practices analyze, propose, create, Implement, and assess.  In the HRD model, assess refers to assessment which is the same as evaluation in the ADDIE model. 

These systematic performance models are often viewed as linear, stet-by-step, models.  By viewing these models this way they become ineffective at improving performance for the long-term.  Each model is presented to be cyclical and interactive.  This means that each model is designed as a continuous improvement cycle with dynamic interactions between each stage.  In the case of evaluation, this stage affects each of the other four stages in the process.  Evaluation begins during the initial analysis phase and continues through each stage, then re-cycles again, as improvements to the new improved cycle are incorporated.  Wang and Wilcox (2006) support this view indicating: “the larger view of evaluation may not be treated as a separate phase during the process…. It is indeed an ongoing effort throughout all phases of the ADDIE process and culminating at the last phase” (p. 528).

Shrock and Geis identified evaluation as a “process of collecting information and feeding it back to those who need the information so that the system can succeed” (as cited in Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999, p. 185).  Evaluation should be designed to provide feedback during each stage in the process so that improvements can be made to the process.

Evaluation comes in two forms: formative evaluation and summative evaluation.

Scriven (1991) identified formative evaluation to be used “to provide information on improving program design and development” (as cited in Wang & Wilcox, 2009, p. 529).  Wang and Wilcox identified that the purpose of formative evaluation was “to identify weakness in instructional material, methods, or learning objectives” (p. 529). Formative evaluation can be used to evaluate the instructional methods during a training program. 

Following the training program summative evaluation will be used to determine the long-term effectiveness of the program and its instructional methods, including learning transfer.  Brown and Gerhardt (2002) described summative evaluation as those “efforts that assess the effectiveness of completed interventions in order to provide suggestions about their use” (p. 952).  A training program can be evaluated by its impact on the organization and its long-term effectiveness through summative evaluation.

A successful evaluation is one that utilizes both formative evaluation and summative evaluation.  Evaluation needs to be viewed as an iterative process that affects each of the stages in the training process that it is measuring.  Each systematic performance improvement endeavor needs to be addressed as a continuous improvement cycle with a strong emphasis on evaluation.  Evaluation is the key component that makes the systematic performance improvement process a continuous effort, allowing improvements to be made to the process during each stage.

REFERENCES

Brown, K. G. & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002).  Formative evaluation: An integrative practice model and case study.  Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 951-983.

Stolovitch, H. D. & Keeps, E. J. (1999).  Handbook of human performance technology: Improving individual and organizational performance worldwide (2^nd ed.).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.

Wang, G. G. & Wilcox, D. (2006).  Training evaluation: Knowing more than is practiced.  Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 528-539.

HPT Standards & Systemic Issues

HPT has developed ten standards when dealing with systemic issues.  The first four standards are the core HPT standards, while the remaining six standards deal more specifically to systemic issues.  The first four standards must be met before any of the other six standards can be accomplished.  Without completing the first four standards first, you will be unable to accomplish a fully systemic resolution (Brethower, 2006). 


HPT's ten standards for dealing with systemic issues:
1) Focus on results and help clients focus on results.
2) Look at situations systemically, taking into consideration the larger context, including competing pressures, resource constraints, and anticipated change.
3) Add value in how you do the work and through the work itself.
4) Utilize partnerships or collaborate with clients and other experts as required (Brethower, 2006, p. 112).


Be systematic in all aspects of the process, including the:
5) assessment of the need or opportunity.
6) analysis of the work and workplace to identify the cause or factors that limit performance.
7) design of the solution or specification of the requirements of the solution.
8) development of all or some of the solution and its elements.
9) implementation of the solution.
10) evaluation of the process and the results (Brethower, 2006, p. 113).


Look closely at the standards for steps 5 through 10.  Do they look familiar? These steps include what is typically known as a needs assessment followed by the ADDIE process.  The ADDIE process is an acronym for Analysis, Design, Develop, Implementation, and Evaluation.  One additional item that could be added would be feedback.  Standard #11 could include a feedback loop to each process, thus making the process a continuous improvement process.


Reference:
Brethower, D. M. (2006). Systemic issues.  In Pershing, J. A. (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology: Principles, practices, potential (pp. 111-137). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Training as an Intervention

Training is a critical component in the field of Human Performance Technology (HPT). Pershing (2006) defined HPT as “the study and ethical practice of improving productivity in organizations by designing and developing effective interventions that are results-oriented, comprehensive, and systemic” (p. 6). Unfortunately, training is often looked at as the end-all solution to correcting/fixing performance problems. This fallacy of ‘training can fix it’ has lead to a large number of training interventions, along with their expenditures, that have fallen short of promised expectations.

Training programs are often selected as a matter of convenience rather than as a planned systematic intervention with a specified goal or outcome.  At times it feels as though training programs are selected primarily, as Landis and Bhagat (1996) stated, "because they are well advertised, not because they are well designed" (as cited in Weber, S., 2008, p. 51).  Often times, trainers and those in charge of training, resort to already established training programs.  Rossett (2009) highlighted this problem by sounding the following alarm: “It is time for human resources and training professionals to turn from their habitually favored interventions, like training, to solutions that match the customer and situation” (p. 19).  Additionally, training is often considered to be a quick-fix to a misunderstood performance problem. Rothwell, Stavros, and Sullivan (2010) identified the problem where quick-fix solutions are inappropriate in resolving the source of the problem as “employee training is often inappropriately perceived to be” (OD defined).

HPT takes a counter-intuitive approach when dealing with training. Training is often considered the last step in the problem resolution intervention. Thus, training should only be applied in those instances where no other cheaper and less timely intervention will work. Robinson and Robison (1995) highlight: “solutions to performance problems should be based upon a thorough analysis of causes of the problem” (p. 4). The point here is not that training is ineffective, but that training needs to address the right performance objective for it to be effective.

Training needs analyses, or performance analyses, should be conducted before any training intervention is designed.  These analyses are conducted to determine what is termed the performance gap.  This gap is the difference between what should be to what is.  Rummler and Brache (1995) view process maps that compare processes in their current state (the ‘as-is’ state) compared to how these should be (the ‘should-be’ state). The differences between the should-be and the as-is represents the performance or process gap - this is where the resolution needs to be directed.    Robinson and Robinson (1995) use a performance relationship map to determine the needs for four key performance drivers: business needs, performance needs, training needs, and work environment needs. Their performance relationship map distinguishes between the type of performance that should be demonstrated with those that is being demonstrated. The difference is the performance gap that needs to be attended to. 

When the identified performance gap identifies a deficiency in employees knowledge and skills in which new knowledge could resolve the gap then training could be a final resolving intervention.  Robinson and Robinson (1995) identified training needs as those “areas where performers lack skill or knowledge to perform satisfactorily” (p. 26). If the performance gap identifies a deficiency in either of the other three drivers (business needs, performance needs, work environment needs) then training is probably not the best intervention to resolve the performance gap.  

Selecting training as an intervention when the performance deficiency relates to employees knowledge and skills will most certainly guide you on the path to resolving the performance gap.  Selecting training as an intervention when the source of the problem is not related to knowledge or skills, or when the problem has not been identified through need analysis, will most likely lead to waisted expenditures and waisted effort from those involved.  Additionally, improperly selecting training could potentially decrease performance while lowering the motivation of the employees in the long-term. 

References:

Pershing, J. A. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In Pershing, J. A. (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology: Principles, practices, potential. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Robinson, D. G., & Robinson, J. C. (1995). Performance consulting: Moving beyond training. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Rothwell, W. J., Stavros, J. M., & Sullivan, A. (2009). Organization development and change. In Rothwell, W. J., Stavros, J.M., & Sullivan, A. (Eds.). Practicing organization development: A guide for leading change (3^rd ed.) (Chapter 1). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Rossett, A. (2009). First things fast: A handbook of performance analysis (2^nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Rummler, G. A., Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart (2^nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Weber, S. (2008).  Intercultural learning in business and human resource education. In Nijhof, W. J., & Nieuwenhuis, L. F.M. (Eds.), The learning potential of the workplace (pp. 47 - 69). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Knowledge Markets

In Working Knowledge, by Thomas Davenport and Laurence Prusak (1998), knowledge transfer is viewed from the lens of market forces.  Knowledge moves upward as well as downward in organizations.  Following how knowledge is transferred from the bottom-up: knowledge is created by an individual, then externalized and shared with team members, then move upward to upper management.  If this new knowledge effects changes within the organization then this new knowledge could also be seen in the environment in which the organization operates.  The same can also be said about transferring knowledge from the top-down: changes in the environment (changes in government policy, new competitors, loss of suppliers, etc…) can change how management address business as usual forcing changes downward, making changes to teams and groups, thus effecting work at the individual level.  These market forces, according to Davenport and Prusak (1998), are the drivers of knowledge.

Understanding that these knowledge markets exist can help with the efficiency of transferring knowledge to those who need the knowledge to perform their work tasks, to solve complex problems, and to spark innovation.  Many organizations assume that by placing internet technologies in the hands of the employees knowledge will be transferred freely.  Davenport and Prusak (1998) identified this problem: "Companies install e-mail or collaborative software and expect knowledge to flow freely through the electronic pipeline. When it doesn't happen, they are more likely to blame the software or inadequate training than to face a fact of life: people rarely give away valuable possession (including knowledge) without expecting something in return" (p. 26).

Knowledge drivers determine whether newly created knowledge will be transferred as well as what knowledge is being requested.  Time, money, and knowledge are "finite resource" as Davenport and Prusak (1998) have identified.  With these resources being scarce, people have to juggle these three resources.  With time being a critical factor in one's business day, knowledge transfer is a rarity and reciprocity is usually one driver that can launch knowledge transfer.  Additional drivers, according to Davenport and Prusak (1998), although they didn't call them drivers they referred to them as the price system. are repute, altruism, and trust.

Trust is the most critical driver to knowledge transfer.  If you don't trust a knowledge source you are skeptical to sharing that knowledge until you are able to verify the source.  Davenport and Prusak (1998) indicated three ways in which trust must be established within organizations:

1. Trust must be visible.
2. Trust must be ubiquitous.
3. Trustworthiness must start at the top (pp. 34-35).

For successful knowledge transfer to take place in your organization identify your knowledge markets.  Identify the drivers to knowledge transfer and remove any barriers to the knowledge transfer process.  If there is no knowledge market present, or at least identified, then create a knowledge market that incentivizes your employees to create and transfer knowledge.  Provide gift cards for transferring a specified amount of knowledge or incorporate the knowledge transfer into a quarterly bonus pool.  Aside from the monetary benefits, employees will soon see the rewards of having access to more knowledge that is beneficial to them as well as knowing who can provide them with the knowledge they need.  This will, in the long-run, provide a more effective and innovative workplace.

References:

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Knowledge Management: Distinguishing the difference between data, information, and knowledge

Knowledge management deals with capturing implicit and explicit knowledge within an organization, at the individual level as well as the team and/or group level.  Turner, Zimmerman, and Allen (in press) made the distinction that "knowledge management is more than just information management" (p. 3), it deals with creating, storing, and retrieving an organizations' collective knowledge.  In doing so, knowledge management makes the distinction between data, information, and knowledge.  

Davenport and Prusak (1998) distinguished data as "a set of discrete, objective facts about events" (p. 2) compared to information in which they described to be more like a message - typically in audible, visual, or digital form.  Knowledge is further separated from data and information by Davenport and Prusak's (1998) working definition:

      Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information.  It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers.  In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms (p. 5). 

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) contrasted knowledge from information by making three observations:

1. Knowledge, unlike information, is about beliefs and commitment.  Knowledge is a function of a particular stance, perspective, or intention.
2. Knowledge… is about action.
3. Knowledge… is about meaning.  It is context-specific and relational (p. 58).

Managing knowledge, rather than data or information, in an organization is critical to its' success.  For it is from this knowledge that innovation is spurred, new products are developed, and new customers are gained.  Drucker (2006) highlighted that every organization needs to be devoted to creating the new.  Drucker (2006) identified three systematic practices for organizations to complete this process, which includes the functions of knowledge management:

1. The first is continuing improvement of everything the organization does, the process the Japanese call kaizen.
2. Second, every organization will have to learn to exploit its knowledge, that is, to develop the next generation of applications from its own successes.
3. Finally, every organization will have to learn to innovate… as a systematic process (pp. 142-143).

References:

Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know.  Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Drucker, P. F. (2006). Classic Drucker: Essential wisdom of Peter Drucker from the pages of Harvard Business Review. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. 

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese Companies create the dynamics of innovation.  New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Turner, J. R., Zimmerman, T., & Allen, J. M. (in press). Teams as a process for knowledge management.  

America is Still Exceptional: As Long as Others are Copying Us

You hear some critics of Steve Jobs claim he didn't invent his creations, he only made someone else's creations better.  This may be so, up to a point, but it doesn't diminish Job's creativity, vision, and innovation.  Job's, and others at Apple, made the mouse better than what Xerox was able to do.  This collective innovation process, from Xerox to Apple, provided users with an interactive computer experience that changed the computing industry forever.  The rest is history, which has led to the Apple we know and love today.

Copying American innovations is a daily occurrence in some parts of the world.  Fletcher (2010) highlighted that "piracy has made China one of the world's most frustrating markets for software companies…. IDC estimated that 79% of the PC software installed in China last year was pirated" (p. 1).  Samsung has been accused of copying the Apple iPhone and iPad with their Galaxy line of products in which Apple filed a patent law suit against the company.  Apple claims that "Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging" (Fried, 2011). 

Online attacks that targeted a number of U.S. Corporations originated at two Chinese Universities: Jiaotong University and the Lanziang Vocational School (Packowski, 2010).  Sources are not clear on whether these attacks are government driven or rampant students just playing around on their computers.  Either way, the security of U.S. Corporations and their privacy has been violated.

The examples provided above are only a few of the copyright, piracy, hacking, security breaches, patent infringement, examples that can easily be found in newspapers on a daily basis.  These examples are clear evidence that America is still exceptional, still provides innovative products, and still provides a product desired from around the globe.  One question would have to be made: What if no one wanted to copy American products anymore?  What if everyone wanted to copy Chinese products, or Japanese products, or India's products instead?  The point is simple: American products are still clearly innovative and America is still Exceptional!

Moving into the future we need to consider what needs to be done to continue our technical and innovative advantage.  Are we producing an educated work force to operate in and to move beyond the Web 3.0 environment?  Are we leading the technology summits around the globe, or are we participants.  Where are most of the technology students coming from in the next 20 years (U.S., China, India, etc…)?  Where are the most innovated students coming from in the next 20 years?  Is America positioned to be the clear leader in innovation and new technological products for the next generation?

References

Fletcher, O. (October 26, 2010). Fighting China's pirates: Software makers try lower prices to lure users away from illegal copies.  Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704300604575554701758669106.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews

Fried, I. (April 18, 2011). Apple files patent suit against Samsung over galaxy line of phones and tablets.  Retrieved from http://allthingsd.com/20110418/apple-files-patent-suit-against-samsung-over-galaxy-line-of-phones-and-tablets/

Paczkowski, J. (February 19, 2010). World war WAN: Google hack traced to schools in China.  Retrieved from http://allthingsd.com/20100219/google-hack-traced-to-schools-in-china/