See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/220415052

Developing Learning Networks

Article in AI & SOCIETY · March 2001

DOI: 10.1007/BF01205739 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS
147 1,031

2 authors:

John Bessant George Tsekouras

University of Exeter University of Brighton
330 PUBLICATIONS 21,055 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 394 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by George Tsekouras on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Developing learning networks

By

John Bessant and George Tsekouras

Centre for Research in Innovation Management
University of Brighton, Falmer, Brighton, BN19PH, U.K.

UKWON Working Paper Number 9

Abstract

Considerable interest has been shown in models of inter-organisational collaboration

including clusters, networks and recently supply chains. Arguably effective
configurations of enterprises can work together to achieve some form of what is termed
‘collective efficiency’ which enables them to cope with the challenges of the current
competitive environment. This paper addresses one aspect of such collective efficiency –
the potential acceleration and improvement of the process of knowledge acquisition and
capacity building through shared learning. It explores the concept of formal ‘learning
networks’ and reports on UK research into the design and operation of such networks.

Key words
Learning networks; knowledge management; inter-organisational networks; innovation;
supply chain management; clusters
 Developing learning networks
John Bessant and George Tsekouras
Centre for Research in Innovation Management
University of Brighton, U.K.

Introduction

Inter-organisational networking is becoming an issue of considerable interest amongst

researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. In part this reflects the perception of
advantages of networking over traditional transactional models of organisation, in which
there is often a trade-off between modes of interaction (Williamson 1975), and in part it
acknowledges the impact of technological and market changes which have blurred the
boundaries between enterprises and opened up the arena in which new forms might
emerge. ‘Virtual enterprises’, ‘boundaryless organisations’ and ‘networked companies’
are typical examples of the thinking and experimentation which is going on to try and
establish different approaches to the problem of inter-organisational relationships.

Unfortunately, as Nohria and Eccles point out, the increasing interest in the phenomenon
has meant that the term ‘networking’ has become imprecise but there is, nonetheless, some
convergence of thinking on the topic (Nohria and Eccles 1992; Grandori and Soda 1995).

In this paper we are concerned less with networks as a theoretical construct than with
looking at them in terms of their effective operation. It is clear that some form of inter-
organisational co-operation can contribute benefits to members under certain conditions; of
particular interest here is work on supply chains and networks, innovation networks (Tidd
1997; Oliver and Blakeborough 1998)industrial districts and (Chaston 1995; Semlinger
1995; Schmitz 1997). For example, in the case of supply chains and networks there is
extensive evidence to support the view that some form of co-operation represents a viable
alternative to more traditional confrontational models - although the design and
implementation of such co-operative arrangements remains fraught with difficulty (Macbeth
1989; Sako 1992; Lamming 1993)

Similarly there has been much discussion about the merits of technological collaboration,
especially in the context of complex product systems development (Dodgson 1991; Hobday
1994; Marceau 1994)Innovation networks of this kind offer significant advantages in terms
of assembling different knowledge sets and reducing the time and costs of development -
but are again often difficult to implement (Tidd 1997)

Studies of ‘collective efficiency’ have explored the phenomenon of clustering in a number

of different contexts. (Piore and Sabel 1982; Humphrey and Schmitz 1996; Nadvi 1997;
Porter 1997)From this work it is clear that the model is widespread - not just confined to
parts of Italy, Spain and Germany but diffused around the world - and under certain
conditions, extremely effective. For example, one town (Salkot) in Pakistan plays a
dominant role in the world market for specialist surgical instruments made of stainless steel.
From a core group of 300 small firms, supported by 1500 even smaller suppliers, 90% of
production (1996) was exported and took a 20% share of the world market, second only to
Germany. In another case the Sinos valley in Brazil contains around 500 small firm
manufacturers of specialist high quality leather shoes. between 1970 and 1990 their share
of the world market rose from 0.3% to 12.5% and they now export some 70% of total
production. In each case the gains are seen as resulting from close interdependence in a co-
operative network.

The conditions under which effective networking takes place are less clearly identified, but it
is becoming clear that simple factors such as proximity do not, of themselves, explain the
complexities of networking. For example, Humphrey et. Al. identify the importance of
developing trust relations, whilst Schmitz and Best both stress the importance of facilitation
by network brokers, impannatore or others (Best 1990; Nadvi and Schmitz 1994; Schmitz
1995; Humphrey and Schmitz 1996). This paper seeks to add to this literature by exploring
enabling and constraining mechanisms associated with effective learning in networks.

Purposive networks

In all of these cases it appears that networks form for particular purposes but then offer
the possibility of additional activity taking place based on the core co-operative
framework. So, for example, the clusters of middle Italy may have originally formed as an
economic response, providing a way of resolving the basic difficulties of resource access
for small firms. But having established a core framework which allowed for resource
sharing and collective efficiency, these networks began to grow, adding a dimension of
technological learning to them. The case of CITER in Italy is a good example here. The
predominantly small-scale of firm operations in the fashion textile sector meant that none
could afford the design technology or undertake research into process development in
areas like dyeing. A co-operative research centre - CITER - was established and funded
by members of the consorzia and chartered with work on technological problems related
to the direct needs of the members. Over time this has evolved into a world-class research
institute but its roots are still in the local network of textile firms. It has become a
powerful mechanism for innovation and technology transfer and has helped to upgrade
the overall knowledge base of this sector (Rush, Hobday et al. 1996; Rush, Bessant et al.
1997)

Our concern in this paper is to look at one aspect of network behaviour - the potential
value of learning together - and to explore the emerging concept of ‘learning networks’ as
examples of networks specifically established for the primary purpose of increasing the
knowledge base and capacity of a group of members.

Learning matters…

To state the obvious, firms need to learn to survive. As de Geus points out, (based on
studies carried out by Shell) the average corporate survival rate for large companies is
only about half as long as that of a human being (de Geus 1996). To put this into
perspective almost 40% of the firms which made up the Fortune Top 500 ten years ago
no longer exist, whilst of the top 12 companies which made up the Dow Jones index in
1900 only one – General Electric – survives today. Even apparently robust giants like
IBM, GM or Kodak can suddenly display worrying signs of mortality, whilst for small
firms the picture is often considerably worse since they lack the protection of a large
resource base.
Behind these figures lies a challenge. Not all firms fail and some have undoubtedly thrived
during this period; the key feature which they share is an ability to adapt and learn to deal
with their rapidly changing and uncertain environments. Research suggests that there are
two important components involved in such learning; the first involves the accumulation
and development of a core knowledge base - the ‘core competence’ - which differentiates
the firm from others and offers the potential for competitive advantage. Acquiring this is
not simply a matter of purchasing or trading knowledge assets but the systematic and
purposive learning and construction of a knowledge base (Pavitt 1990; Kay 1993;
Prahalad and Hamel 1994; Tidd, Bessant et al. 1997; Teece 1998)

The second is the long-term development of a capability for learning and continuous
improvement across the whole organisation. Recognition of this need has led to growing
emphasis on the concept of ‘learning organisations’ and on the mechanisms through which
this capability can be developed (Senge 1990; Nonaka 1991; Garvin 1993; Leonard-
Barton 1995). One aspect is the possibility of gaining traction and support for the
learning process through working with others in what we term ‘learning networks’ .

How organisations learn

There is much discussion of learning in organisations, and the following represents a brief
attempt to summarise some convergent themes:

• there is some agreement that learning can be viewed as a cyclical process (see figure 1),
involving a combination of experience, reflection, concept formation and
experimentation (Kolb and Fry 1975)

Figure 1: Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning

ce n
rie
pe
Ex

t
en n o
rim cti
pe fle
Ex Re

t
ep c
on C
• it follows from this model that learning only takes place when the cycle is completed -
thus much effort an activity in one or more quadrants may not necessarily lead to
learning

• we also need to recognise that learning is not automatic - there must be motivation to
enter the cycle, and if there is insufficient arousal learning may not take place

• learning can be supported by structures, procedures, etc. to facilitate the operation of

the learning cycle - for example, through challenging reflection, facilitated sharing of
experiences or planned experimentation

• learning involves the accumulation and connection of data into information and
knowledge

• learning involves both tacit and formal components, with the task being to capture and
codify, to make explicit (Polanyi 1967; Nonaka 1991)

• learning may take place in ‘adaptive’ mode - learning to do what we do a little better -
or it may involve reframing and radical change (what some writers term a ‘paradigm
shift’) in which the perception of the problems to be solved and the potential set of
solutions change (Kuhn 1962; Argyris and Schon 1970; Bessant 1998)

• learning to learn - learning to design and operate learning systems – is an important

attribute of the development of learning organisations (Argyris and Schon 1970)

Most of the original work on learning was carried out at the level of the individual but in
recent years there has been growing interest in the concept of ‘learning organisations’. At
one level it can be argued that it is only the individuals within an organisation who can
learn but at another there is some evidence for viewing organisations as capable of learning
behaviour which extends beyond that of individuals and which emulates key activities like
experimentation, association and remembering. (Hedberg 1981) In particular we can make
the following observations about learning organisations:

• First, whilst it is individuals who carry out learning processes it is the organisation
which provides the context in which this takes place - and some environments are
more conducive than others to enabling learning

• Second, under certain organisational conditions individuals interact and share

knowledge. Over time this can become part of the organisational culture - the pattern
of shared concepts, values, beliefs, etc. (Schein 1992); where this culture is
sufficiently strong it can survive the departure of individuals and the entry of new
individuals who become socialized into it. Thus we can speak of an organisation
learning and having some form of memory where its learning accumulates and which
guides its subsequent behaviour
• Although much learning takes place in the tacit domain, attempts can also be made to
capture and formalize knowledge learned in this process. For example, formal
programmes of directed experiment and reflection (R&D) can lead to increased
codified and tacit knowledge - the technological competence of the firm. Equally
programmes which attempt to capture tacit knowledge in exemplified procedures also
contribute to making tacit knowledge explicit - e.g. in the articulation of core
processes which underpins the acquisition of ISO 9000 certification

• several mechanisms appear to help with this process of sharing and making knowledge
explicit; these include exchange of perspectives, shared experimentation, display,
measurements, etc (Garvin 1993). At their heart they represent ways of supporting
and developing a shared learning cycle.

Problems with learning

Although there is growing interest in the topic and strong arguments for the need to
acquire and upgrade knowledge on a continuing basis – continuos learning – the fact
remains that learning is a complex and problematic activity. It does not take place
automatically – indeed in many cases there are elaborate defence mechanisms which
militate against the organisation even entering the learning cycle. These range from
ignorance and isolation form stimuli, through to various forms of denial or of
underestimating the strength of the incoming stimulus.
(Tidd, Bessant et al. 1997)). In other cases firms may recognise the need for learning but
become locked in an incomplete cycle of experiment and experience, with little or no time
or space given to reflection or to the entry of new concepts. For others the difficulty lies
in organising and mobilising learning skills, whilst in other cases the difficulty lies in
making use of the rich resource of tacit knowledge - things people know about but are
unable to describe or articulate (Polanyi 1967)].

Table 1 summarises some of the key blocks to learning:

Table 1: Key blocks to learning

Learning block Underlying problem
Lack of entry to the learning cycle Perceived stimulus for change is too weak
Firms is isolated or insulated from
stimulus
Stimulus is misinterpreted or underrated
Denial

Incomplete learning cycle Motivation to learn is present but

process of learning is flawed. Emphasis
given to some aspects – e.g.
experimentation – but not to all stages
and to sequence.

Weak links in the cycle Reflection process is unstructured or

unchallenging
Lack of access to or awareness of relevant
new concepts
Risk avoidance leads to lack of
experimentation
Lack of sharing or exchange of relevant
experiences – parochial search for new
ideas
‘Not invented here’ effect
Lack of learning skills or structure Lack of supporting and enabling
structures and procedures

Knowledge remains in tacit form Lack of mechanisms for capturing and

codifying learning

Repeated learning Lack of mechanisms for capturing and

codifying learning leads to repetition of
same learning content

Learning is infrequent, sporadic and not Mechanisms for enabling learning are not
sustained embedded or absent

Dealing with these and other problems is not easy but literature suggests that the creation
and development of relevant learning support structures and processes is one of the most
important management challenges emerging in the new competitive environment. One
aspect of these support structures concerns the use of principles of shared and co-
operative learning to help maintain momentum.

Intra and inter-organisational learning - can networks help?

Although much of the discussion on learning organisations is concerned with structures

and processes within particular firms there is an emerging strand which deals with the
theme of inter-firm learning. For example, in work on supply chain development there is
a growing recognition that the next step after moving from confrontational to co-operative
relationships within supply chains is to engage in a process of shared development and
learning. (Hines 1994; Kaplinsky, Bessant et al. 1999)

This aspect of learning has something in common with the principles of learning within
groups instead of at the individual level. In particular the active participation of other sin
the process of challenge and support is recognised as a powerful enabling resource and
was developed into a widely used approach termed ‘ action learning’. (McGill and Warner
Weil 1989)This concept stresses the value of experiential learning and the benefits which
can come from gaining different forms of support from others in moving around the
learning cycle. Part of the vision of Revans, one of the pioneers of the concept, involved
the idea of ‘comrades in adversity’, working together to tackle complex and open-ended
problems (Revans 1983; Pedler, Boydell et al. 1991).

The potential benefits of shared learning include the following:

• in shared learning there is the potential for challenge and structured critical reflection
from different perspectives

• different perspectives can bring in new concepts (or old concepts which are new to
the learner)

• shared experimentation can reduce perceived and actual costs risks in trying new
things

• shared experiences can provide support and open new lines of inquiry or exploration

• shared learning helps explicate the systems principles, seeing the patterns - separating
‘the wood from the trees’

• shared learning provides an environment for surfacing assumptions and exploring

mental models outside of the normal experience of individual organisations - helps
prevent ‘not invented here’ and other effects
Arguably this approach has much to offer inter-organisational learning and the experience
of regional clusters of small firms provides one important piece of evidence in support of
this. The ability of textile or ceramic producers to share knowledge about product and
process technology and to extend the capabilities of the sector as a whole is recognised as
central to their abilities to achieve export competitiveness. In the case of Italian furniture,
for example, a dominant position in world trade has been achieved and sustained over
fifteen years – yet the average firm size is less than 20 employees. (Piore and Sabel 1982;
Best 1990).

If we accept that there is potential in the concept of learning in networks or clusters, two
questions are raised. The first is the extent to which we can consciously build in this
concept in the design and operation of ‘managed networks’ – such as supply chains or
technological collaborations. The second is the extent to which it can be used as an
alternative or complementary model for enabling learning around a specific theme – for
example, technology transfer, upgrading and competence development amongst small
firms.

Building networks that learn

Networks of any kind offer many opportunities for learning to take place - by sharing
ideas, trying out experiments, etc. But where such learning takes place it is essentially as
a ‘by-product of some other activity or purpose within the network. However it might
be possible to use the network concept as a vehicle whose primary purpose is to enable
learning. This concept of a 'learning network' can be expressed as:

‘a network formally set up for the primary purpose of increasing knowledge’

This definition implies a number of features:

• they are formally established and defined

• they have a primary learning target – some specific learning/knowledge which the
network is going to enable

• they have a structure for operation, with boundaries defining participation

• processes which can be mapped on to the learning cycle

• measurement of learning outcomes which feeds back to operation of the network and
which eventually decides whether or not to continue with the formal arrangement
 These features may be weakly or strongly developed in different kinds of learning
network, but they represent structure and process aspects which could be explored
further. We can express this diagrammatically as in figure 2.

Figure 2: Key elements in learning networks -

s
aid
g
b line s ,
a r
En c t ug
r u in s,
s t rat ism c.
e n t
o p
c ha s , e
e e
m rol
y
ke

re
f co e s s se
d
a c
ro s as p r o ea ge
be n cr
m tio ing o n In wled -
nu isa on rk antgi o t y o
A a m n m o
tw orrm n i kn aci o d
g n p t
or h co lear Ne nslfea ca lity ng
t ag i hi
wi d tnog tlrin b
a e t
e h i ab m r
neet en sore o t
om o n
s m fere
f
di

d
an
ks t o
oc r s
Bl r i e e
r iv
b aect n
f o
ef rati
p e
o

An emergent typology of learning networks

Examples of the kind of learning network described above might include:

• a formal club whose members have formed together to try and understand and share
experiences about new production concepts - e.g. a ‘best practice’ club or forum

• a shared pre-competitive R&D project - ‘co-laboratories’

• a supplier association where the aim is to upgrade levels of capability

• a professional institution where the aim is to upgrade and update member's knowledge

• a trade or sectoral research organisation where the aim is to upgrade sectoral

knowledge
Such groupings represent the coming together of groups or individuals for particular
learning purposes; table 2 indicates an outline typology for networks of this kind.

Table 2: Outline typology of learning networks

(based on (Holti and Whittle 1998; Bessant and Francis 1999)])

Type Learning target Examples

Professional Increased ‘professional Professional institution

knowledge and skill =
better practice

Sector-based - association Improved competence in Trade association

of firms with common some aspect of Sector-based research
interests in the competitive performance - organisation
development of a sector e.g. technical knowledge

Topic-based Improved ‘Best practice’ clubs

awareness/knowledge of a
particular field - e.g. a new
technology or technique in
which many firms have an
interest

Region-based Improved knowledge ‘Clusters’ and local

around themes of regional learning co-operatives
interest - for example,
SMEs learning together
about how to export,
diffuse technology, etc.

Supplier or value-stream Learning to achieve Particular firms supplying

based standards of ‘best practice’ to a major customer or
in quality, delivery, cost members of a shared value
reduction, etc. stream

Government-promoted National or regional Regional development

networks initiatives to provide agencies, extension
upgrades in capacity - services, etc.
knowledge about
technology, exporting,
marketing, etc.
Task support networks Similar to professional Practitioner networks
networks, aimed at sharing
and developing knowledge
about how to do a
particular - especially
novel - task
It is important to note that many of these - for example, professional institutions -
represent learning networks but also carry out other activities such as representation and
lobbying on behalf of their members. In many cases the learning aspects become
subordinated or even dormant; we can compare between different examples of the same
kind of learning network. Thus some Trade Associations are perceived as more active
facilitators of learning for their members than others.

Several networks are also hybrids - for example, it is possible to find examples of
networks which are both government promoted and also topic based. Some are formally
promoted, with a clear focus and organising ‘hub’, whilst others are largely co-operative
and based on mainly informal mechanisms. For example, many emergent practitioner
networks are essentially ‘self-help’ networks of people in a new role for which the
operating rules are still unclear; it makes sense for them to pool experiences and develop
the emergent role together.

Although there is wide variety, the primary feature of such learning networks is that they
all use the principle of shared learning to enable capacity development. So it will be
worth looking at how learning networks can contribute to this generic process.

Learning networks in operation

Our interest in learning networks forms part of a wider project looking at inter-
organisational networking (ION). Within this programme we are looking at a generic
framework for reviewing the operation of effective networks, which is based on the model
in figure 2, presented earlier. Essentially this views a network as a form of organisation in
which a number of activities and processes help it fulfil its purpose. In particular we are
concerned with 8 core processes and the extent to which these are carried out as being
linked to the success or otherwise of the network.

The 8 core processes are shown in table 3:

Table 3: 8 core processes in inter-organisational networking

Process Underlying questions

Network creation How the membership of the network is

defined and maintained

Decision-making How (where, when, who, etc.) decisions

get taken

Conflict resolution How (and if) conflicts are resolved

Information processing How information flows and is managed

Knowledge capture How knowledge is articulated and captured

to be available for the whole network

Motivation/ commitment How members are motivated to join/ remain

in the network – e.g. through active
facilitation, shared concerns for
development, etc.

Risk/benefit sharing How the risks and benefits are shared

Integration How relationships are built and maintained

between individual representatives in the
network

The basic ION model asserts that networks will be more or less effective in the ways in
which they handle these processes. For example, a network with no clear routes for
resolving conflicts is likely to be less effective than one which has a clear and accepted set
of norms – a ‘network culture’ – which can handle the inevitable conflicts which emerge.

Building and operating networks can be facilitated by a variety of enabling inputs – for
example, the use of advanced information and communications technologies may have a
marked impact on the effectiveness with which information processing takes place.
Independent facilitation appears to have a strong influence on many of the behavioural
dimensions.

In order to explore some of these issues further we carried out some exploratory research
on a number of learning networks during 1998/9. Table 4 gives their details.

Table 4: Examples of learning networks

Example Type of learning network Primary purpose

A business innovation Region/topic-based Enhancing manufacturing

centre and 14 small firms in capability amongst SMEs in
its region the region

NASURF - the National Government-promoted/ Enabling technology

Surface Engineering Centre topic based transfer to SMEs in the
surface finishing field

Industry Forum Sector based Enabling upgrading of

(organised by the Society of manufacturing and supply
Motor Manufacturers ad performance within the
Traders) automotive components
sector, especially in 2nd and
3rd tier
A textile manufacturer’s Sector-based Enhancing product and
network co-ordinated by a process innovation
regional university
Sector-based Improving productivity
Construction Productivity across SMEs in the
Network construction sector
(organised by the
Construction Industries
Research >>

SALIGNA consortium Value- stream/supply Promoting export

network based competitiveness within the
value stream of eucalyptus
furniture production

CIRCA Network Topic based Promoting experience

sharing in implementation
and maintenance of
continuous improvement
practices
The Specialist Counsellors Practitioner based Sharing experience and
Network ( involving the emerging good practice
Innovation and technology around small firm support
Counsellors and the Design
Counsellors attached to
Business Links in the UK)

In each case interviews were held, covering the following broad set of issues:

• background - history, membership patterns and arrangements, target membership, etc.

• structure - number and typology of members, organisation and management, finances,
etc.
• operation - key activities, recruitment and maintenance work, etc.
• key success factors
• key blocks to development
Key themes emerging

Although not representative of the range of potential learning networks, this sample does
cover most of the typology mentioned earlier and allows us to examine some emerging
issues. In particular it is clear that whilst all share the basic set of operating processes,
the ways in which these are addressed varies considerably. Analysis suggests that there
are several influencing variables which have a bearing on both the design and operation of
such networks, and these will be discussed briefly below.

(a) ‘Design’ variables

Under this heading we consider those factors which need to be considered when setting
up a learning network, and these include:

• purpose - what is the main learning target for which the network is being set up?
Here the issue is one of clarity; if the network is set up as a loose affiliation of
organisations with a general but rather vague perception of the need to improve some
aspect of their operations, the resulting network will lack focus. Conversely a clearly
defined and shared sense of purpose with a focused and measurable learning target is
likely to be more viable.

• participants - who are the members of the network going to be, and what is the basis
of membership? Although learning networks are essentially ‘open’ in character, there
is a value in defining boundaries, particularly in terms of providing focus and
coherence. One commonly used mechanism is to establish the network as some form
of member’s club (often with a nominal subscription base) in which participation
brings a set of services (such as workshops, consultancy, newsletters, etc.). The
purpose here is less one of income generation than of securing a commitment on the
part of members to participate.

• structure - is it a ‘moderated’ network with a co-ordinating hub or a radial network,

diffusing information from the centre, or a member-to-member wheel model? A
number of different models exist for learning networks and much appears to depend
upon the type of learning involved. For networks where the primary issue is to
communicate formal knowledge - for example, to diffuse awareness of new legal
requirements or building regulations - a simple radial model in which information
flows one way from centre to periphery would be suitable. However, in the case
where the learning target is concerned with tacit knowledge acquisition - for example,
mastering a new technique - a model which stresses high levels of two-way interaction
may be more appropriate.

• it is also important to identify and define roles within the network, particularly those of
co-ordinator and facilitator. Networking as a process may not happen without some
assistance, both in terms of arranging relevant mechanisms (running workshops, editing
newsletters, etc.) and also in energising and motivating learning and in enabling effective
interchange of experience to take place. It is also important to consider what
arrangements are made for identifying and training network brokers, co-ordinators and
 facilitators. The importance of these roles, particularly in helping networks with more
advanced forms of learning, is considerable but the skills involved may not be familiar
and there may be a need to provide support - perhaps even a second learning network -
for network brokers etc. to acquire and develop relevant skills and expertise.

• type of learning to be transacted - is it primarily information diffusion or more

concerned with tacit knowledge exchange? Here the concern is with clarifying the
nature of the learning likely to be involved, and we need to recognise that learning can
take place in several ways (Holti and Whittle 1998). At its simplest it might involve
the acquisition and absorption of straightforward factual data which is available in
explicit and codified form - for example, a new set of regulations on pollution control
or emission standards. Then there is learning in relatively simple adaptive fashion -
learning to do what we do a little better; an example here would be mastering a
particular production process which is already explicit in terms of the information
about it and evident in practice elsewhere so that there are reference sites and
demonstration visit possibilities. At higher levels learning may require challenging
assumptions and reframing the problem issues to be addressed - for example, in
learning new manufacturing philosophies like ‘total quality management’ which
involve a culture change - i.e. a rethink of fundamental assumptions and beliefs. This
reframing requires very different approaches to simple information or adaptive
learning - and so there are implications about the design and operation of a suitable
network to enable this.

• content of learning - how will the learning be diffused. Assuming that there is a clear
focus to what needs to be learned, there is then the need to look at delivery. ? To take
an educational analogy, what is the ‘syllabus’ and how will it be broken up into
manageable chunks? It is often helpful here to have some kind of reference framework
- for example, in work on learning to manage software projects more effectively some
learning networks make use of the Capability-Maturity Index developed by Carnegie
Mellon University (Paulk, Curtis et al. 1993). Some quality clubs make use of the
European Foundation for Quality Management model as a means of guiding the
learning involved in quality improvement. In the case of the Industry Forum example
various benchmarking tools are used to help focus the learning process.

• mechanisms to be used - how will the different stages of the learning cycle be
addressed? What combination of experience-sharing, structured reflection,
introduction of new concepts and shared experimentation will be used? How will
these be mobilised in a programme of activities?

• pump-priming activities to motivate organisations to join - for example, public

subsidy, benchmarking, awareness raising campaigns, etc.

(b) Operating variables

Under operational variables we need to consider how the network will actually operate
and the ways in which it can be ‘fine tuned’ to improve its performance on a continuing
basis. Factors here include:

• co-ordination and facilitation - evidence from our cases and a number of studies of
learning networks suggests that formal inputs to help energize and co-ordinate their
operation are critical factors. The role of ‘network broker’ is complex but requires a
combination of energy and enthusiasm, credibility within the community in which the
network is located and an ability to facilitate the process of networking rather than
engage in ‘expert’ consultancy. In other words the broker needs to avoid telling
people what they should do and instead should help them articulate their learning
needs and the various routes across the network which might enable them to meet
those needs.

• measurement framework - what will ‘success’ constitute and how will it be measured?
Internal measures - such as number of members, turnover of members, renewals of
subscriptions, etc.? External measures such as improved performance directly
attributable to increased knowledge capacity?

• operating arrangements - an important part of the maintenance and continuous

improvement activity associated with managing a learning network is concerned with
reviewing the mechanisms whereby learning can take place. This involves both
selection from and addition to the range of options - workshops, visits, seminars,
newsletters, briefings, etc. - and also development within each of these categories -
frequency, organisation, location, contents, etc.

• operating channels - in similar fashion it is important to review how effectively the

network is diffusing knowledge and enabling learning. Reviewing the channels in use -
face to face meetings, site visits, structured interactions, use of electronic media, etc. -
needs to take place on a continuing basis against the range of options and their
performance.

• resources - what resources - people, learning materials, etc. - are available or can be
developed to support the network?

• blocks and barriers - factors which inhibit the successful operation of the network,
including lack of motivation to learn, communication difficulties, blocking behaviour
by key individuals or groups, entrenched culture of ‘we’ve always done it this
way...’, etc.

• enabling tools and techniques - formal interventions which can help deal with some of
these blocks - for example, training, organisational development inputs, facilitation,
benchmarking, etc.
Is it working? The contribution of networks to improved learning

At this early stage it is difficult to specify the extent to which learning is being enabled in
these networks except at anecdotal level. Many of these networks are relatively new
creations but there does seem to be growing support for this mode of enabling learning.
‘Networking’ is recognised as important although it is poorly understood - one of the
clear messages emerging from the pilot study is the need to learn more about the range of
options which might constitute good practice. A particular problem in this connection is
the absence of measurement frameworks against which learning progress can be mapped.
There is a risk that without suitable measures to highlight whether and where progress is
being made many efforts to establish such entities will founder.

Most of the studied networks had a clear sense of purpose and were at least trying to
measure their performance by some form of response - for example, membership numbers
or inquiries. They had growth targets and some plans for formal development - usually
by expanding the range of services and channels whereby they could reach and support
members in the learning process. UK networks were aware of experience elsewhere -
especially in Italy and Denmark - for example, as a result of the publicity given to strong
export performance achieved by small firms in the furniture sector in Italy.

In general these networks represented complementary or additional mechanisms for

enabling learning rather than as a replacement for intra-firm activity. As the earlier table
indicated, the ‘motive power’ came from many different sources - for some it was
towards a form of ‘self-help’ group (for example with many best practice clubs) but with
others the network was established largely as an attempt to cope with market failure - for
example, the DTI-supported initiatives towards SMEs.

Conclusions

Although the research reported here is at an early stage it is becoming clear that there is
potential for improving the knowledge base of organisations through participation in some
form of learning network. A growing number of studies are looking at specific examples
of learning networks and on the processes involved in setting them up and operating
them, and from this some basic design rules are emerging. In particular they stress the
need for a clear statement of purpose - a specific learning objective rather than the general
but vague hope that something will be learned through interaction.

Research also stresses the need for formal inputs to the process of design and operating
learning networks; they rarely occur by chance and often require inputs, particularly in
the form of co-ordination and facilitation.

Although we have been considering the case of networks specifically established for the
purpose of learning, it is clear that learning behaviour can be found in other kinds of
network. For example, in collaborative innovation networks, the aim is to work together
to create a new product or develop a new process. This necessarily involves active
learning within the network and many of the above design rules are relevant. However
innovation networks of this kind differ in some respects; for example, they are much more
likely to be closed, only involving those members with a claim on the final intellectual and
commercial property and prepared to invest their own risk capital (financial and
intellectual). Innovation networks are also likely to be addressing specific applications of
knowledge rather than its development and diffusion; in this sense open learning networks
are more likely to be found in pre-competitive R&D or in academic circles.

In similar fashion learning is a requirement in the operation of effective supply networks.

Learning new ways of working, particularly those which involve enhancing the value
stream or eliminating waste within that stream, are a key agenda item in the development
of the ‘new’ forms of supplier/ customer relationships. There is also a major need to
change the frame of reference of players within sectors concerning the nature and
operation of these relationships, and this culture change will require extensive ‘un-
learning’ of outdated and inappropriate behaviours as well as acquisition of new, more co-
operative models based on shared goals and continuous improvement. Thus it is likely
that, as these mature, so we will see increasing application of some of the above design
rules.

The potential for learning networks seems considerable, given the range of challenges in
the environment to which organisations must respond in new ways. But it is also clear
that there is still a considerable gap between rhetoric - what could and should be done to
build such networks - and the reality of their implementation. Much work needs to be
done on understanding the challenges involved in successful operation of learning
networks and the tools with which to facilitate their development and survival.

References

Argyris, C. and D. Schon (1970). Organizational learning. Reading, Mass., Addison

Wesley.
Bessant, H. and D. Francis (1999). “Implementing learning networks.” Technovation
19(6/7): 373-383.
Bessant, J. (1998). Advanced manufacturing technology. The Concise Blackwell
Encyclopaedia of Management. C. Cooper and C. Argyris. Oxford, Blackwell.
Best, M. (1990). The new competition. Oxford, Polity Press.
Chaston, I. (1995). “Danish Technological Institute SME networking model:
implementing broker competencies.” Journal of European Industrial Training 19(1).
de Geus, A. (1996). The living company. Boston, Mass, Harvard Business School Press.
Dodgson, M. (1991). Technological collaboration and organisational learning. Brighton,
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.
Garvin, D. (1993). “Building a learning organisation.” Harvard Business Review
July/August: 78-91.
Grandori, A. and G. Soda (1995). “Inter-firm networks: Antecedents, mechanisms and
forms.” Organization Studies 16(2): 183-214.
Hedberg, B. (1981). How organisations learn and unlearn. Handbook of organisation
design. H. Nystrom and W. Starbuck. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Hines, P. (1994). Creating world class suppliers:Unlocking mutual competitive advantage.
London, Pitman.
Hobday, M. (1994). “The limits of Silicon Valley: A critique of network theory.”
Technology Analysis and Strategic management 6(2): 231-244.
Holti, R. and S. Whittle (1998). Guide to developing effective learning networks in
construction. London, CIRIA/Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.
Humphrey, J. and H. Schmitz (1996). “The Triple C approach to local industrial policy.”
World Development 24(12): 1859-1877.
Kaplinsky, R., J. Bessant, et al. (1999). Using supply chains to diffuse 'best practice'.
Brighton, Centre for Research in Innovation Management.
Kay, J. (1993). Foundations of corporate success: How business strategies add value.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Kolb, D. and R. Fry (1975). Towards a theory of applied experiential learning. Theories
of group processes. C. Cooper. Chichester, John Wiley.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
Lamming, R. (1993). Beyond partnership. London, Prentice-Hall.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the
sources of innovation. Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
Macbeth, D. (1989). Strategic manufacturing, IFS Publications.
Marceau, J. (1994). Clusters, chains and complexes: Three approaches to innovation with
a public policy perspective. The handbook of industrial innovation. R. Rothwell and M.
Dodgson. Aldershot, Edward Elgar.
McGill, I. and S. Warner Weil (1989). Making sense of experiential learning. London,
Open University Press.
Nadvi, K. (1997). The cutting edge: Collective efficiency and international
competitiveness in Pakistan, Institute of Development Studies.
Nadvi, K. and H. Schmitz (1994). Industrial clusters in less developed countries: Review
of experiences and research agenda. Brighton, Institute of Development Studies.
Nohria, N. and R. Eccles (1992). Networks and organisations:Structure, form and action.
Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
Nonaka, I. (1991). “The knowledge creating company.” Harvard Business Review
November-December: 96-104.
Oliver, N. and M. Blakeborough (1998). Innovation networks: The view from the inside.
Innovation, co-operation and growth. J. Grieve Smith and J. Michie. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Paulk, M., B. Curtis, et al. (1993). Capability maturity model for software, Software
Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University.
Pavitt, K. (1990). “What we know about the strategic management of technology.”
California Management Review 32: 17-26.
 Pedler, M., T. Boydell, et al. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable
development. Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill.
Piore, M. and C. Sabel (1982). The second industrial divide. New York, Basic Books.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Porter, M. (1997). Location, knowledge creation and competitiveness. Knowledge
capitalism: competitiveness re-evaluated, Boston, Mass., Academy of Management.
Prahalad, C. and G. Hamel (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, Mass., Harvard
University Press.
Revans, R. (1983). Action learning 2. Buckingham, G. Wills/ IMCB.
Rush, H., J. Bessant, et al. (1997). “Strategies for best practice in Research and
Technology Institutes.” Wissenschafts Management 5(September/October): 251-261.
Rush, H., M. Hobday, et al. (1996). Technology institutes: Strategies for best practice.
London, International Thomson Business Press.
Sako, M. (1992). “Prices, quality and trust: Inter-firm relations in Britain and Japan.”
Cambridge Studies in Management 18.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.
Schmitz, H. (1995). “Collective efficiency:Growth path for small-scale industry.” Journal
of Development Studies 31(4): 529-566.
Schmitz, H. (1997). Collective efficiency and increasing returns, Institute of Development
Studies, University of Sussex.
Semlinger, K. (1995). Public support for firm networking in Baden-Wurttemburg.
Europe's next step. R. Kaplinsky, B. Coriat, F. den Hertog and L. Andreason. London,
Frank Cass.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, Doubleday.
Teece, D. (1998). “Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets
for know-how, and intangible assets.” California Management Review 40(3): 55-79.
Tidd, J. (1997). “Complexity, networks and learning: INtegrative themes for research on
innovation management.” International Journal of Innovation Management 1(1): 1-22.
Tidd, J., J. Bessant, et al. (1997). Managing innovation: Integrating technological,
organizational and market change. Chichester, John Wiley.
Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and hierachies. New York, Free Press.

View publication stats