The new created solutions, which follow a new logic or concept of the activity, are usually fragile. The expansion from abstract to concrete special attention to the logic or principle followed in the experiment. If left by its own, there is tendency that the dominant principle (such as standardization in mass production) "kills" the germ-cell, the new logic or principle in the created concept.
The process of ascending from abstract to concrete may stop by the old principle of working. This problem leads to two challenges:
Theoretical challenge
This leads to the questions? How to see the process of ascending from abstract to concrete so that we could represent more clearly the old and the new logic? How to take into account the influence of the old dominant logic (e.g. mass production)?
Practical challenge
What practical solutions could help us to avoid this problem? One possible practical solution is to concentrate in fewer solutions but with a longer-time follow-up or cooperation with the researcher. In other words, work with fewer ideas for a longer time. This would allow the core key new ideas of the the new concept to become locally more robust and increase the chance of becoming more sustainable. It means taking longer periods of follow-up of the same change laboratory.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Do we need variations of CL for different developmental phases and different historical types of activity?
This question is related to the timing of the intervention. The Big cycle of expansion take several years to take place, while during a CL, there are several smaller expansive cycles.The BIG cycle refers to the expansion of an activity system under study, while the time of thesmall cycles are much shorter, refering to the learning process taking place within the CL. How are these two cycles related?
In the first CL conducted in the company posti, for instance, it was created a new more expanded concept of the object of post service based on the idea of a sender -receiver customer. Based on this concept, several experiments were launched. The initial analysis of the expansive cycle showed that the activity was in a need state developmental phase. It means that double-bind was not yet expressed. The contradictions were not strongly manifested. The existing conflicts were still possible to be handled without radical change in the logic of production (concept of the activity).
This leads us to sub-questions:
1) Is it possible to jump over developmental phases, e.g. the double-bind phase? The posti case, suggests the need for for variations of CL according to the developmental phase in which a certain activity is. For example, if the activity is in a need-state phase, the CL would have to concentrate in questioning. The lack of a strong double-bind may also request longer term follow-up.
2) How do we take in account the dominant logic of the activity (e.g. mass production logic: standardization, specialization, top-down decisions, hierarchy type of community) to avoid stopping the process of expansion during and after the Change Laboratories? Do we need a variation of CL for different historical type of activity?
In the first CL conducted in the company posti, for instance, it was created a new more expanded concept of the object of post service based on the idea of a sender -receiver customer. Based on this concept, several experiments were launched. The initial analysis of the expansive cycle showed that the activity was in a need state developmental phase. It means that double-bind was not yet expressed. The contradictions were not strongly manifested. The existing conflicts were still possible to be handled without radical change in the logic of production (concept of the activity).
This leads us to sub-questions:
1) Is it possible to jump over developmental phases, e.g. the double-bind phase? The posti case, suggests the need for for variations of CL according to the developmental phase in which a certain activity is. For example, if the activity is in a need-state phase, the CL would have to concentrate in questioning. The lack of a strong double-bind may also request longer term follow-up.
2) How do we take in account the dominant logic of the activity (e.g. mass production logic: standardization, specialization, top-down decisions, hierarchy type of community) to avoid stopping the process of expansion during and after the Change Laboratories? Do we need a variation of CL for different historical type of activity?
How to analyse the expansive cycle in complex organizations?
In small and specialized organizations, it is relatively easy to identify an activity and make an interpretation of its developmental phase. However, in large organizations like the POSTI (www.posti.fi), there are variations of the same activity and there are multiple activities that are interdependent, in different developmental phases or even following different concepts (or logic/principle) of production.
How to represent the cycle of expansive learning in these cases?
How to represent the cycle of expansive learning in these cases?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Challenges of the method and future development
We should be aware that there are different ways of approaching CL: between research and consultancy. There is a developmental contradiction between these two extremes. The method evolves as solutions are found to this contradiction.
In the Hivinkka project there has been a “heavy” data collection, and therefore it may represent a more research oriented CL. The project started by collecting data about cases. An important challenge during the project was in how to combine the developmental and the research interests. One of the main challenges is how to produce use-value to those who have paid for the CL.
The main challenge in CL is the dialectical relation between activities: activity of research and activity of what we are research (e.g.: social work). There is a challenge in achieving a balance between the way in which research and practitioners conceptualize. What is the balance? There are different logics: research vs. practices.
Another important challenge in CL, mentioned by the participants during the seminar (4th Meeting on Experiences on Change Laboratory), is the increasing number of activities involved in the CLs, what create a need for the development of new tools (mirror data and tools for analysis). To summarize the challenges, I will tentatively draw a ZPD of the Change Laboratory method.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
What are the main methodological principles of the Change Laboratory
Principles of CHAT and DWR
In designing and implementing the methodology, the research team drew on the principles, concepts and tools of CHAT and DWR activity theory. Engestro¨m (2001) describes the five principles that underpin activity theory.
The activity system, seen in its relationships to networks of other systems, is the unit of analysis. The activity is collective, oriented towards an “object” and mediated (e.g. by rules or cultural norms).
Multivoicedness. An activity system is always a community of many points of view, traditions and interests, both individual and collective. This multivoicedness is amplified in networks of interacting systems.
An activity system is the result of historical evolution. What happens now can only be fully understood against its own history.
Contradictions are the basis of development. Contradictions are not problems or conflicts, but deeply embedded structural tensions between elements of the system.Problems or conflicts signify the presence of contradictions.
The possibility of expansive transformation or expansive learning is always there. Such journeys towards whole new sets of objects and purpose are shared and deliberate.
Expansive, or developmental, transformations in the activity system can be stimulated through the cycle of expansive learning.
The cycle of expansive learning
The cycle of expansive learning is based on a cultural-historical analysis of the system (Engestro¨m, 1987). Research on the apple industry corresponded with the stages of the cycle described below (adapted from Engestro¨m et al., 1996; and see also Engestrom et al., 1995, pp. 12-13):
(1) Questioning. Criticising aspects of accepted practice and existing knowledge.
(2) Analysing the situation. In discussion, by thinking or in practice. Two types of analysis are used:. historical: seeks to explain the situation by tracing its origin and evolution using similar techniques to those used in anthropology (e.g. ethnography); and actual-empirical: seeks to explain the current problematic situation by constructing a picture of its inner relationships.
(3) Modelling the newly-found explanatory relationship. Constructing an explicit, simplified model of the new idea that explains, and offers a solution to, the
situation.
(4) Examining the model. Operating, running and experimenting on the model in order to fully grasp its dynamics, potentials and limitations.
(5) Implementing the new model. Making the model concrete, by means of practical applications (e.g. pilots).
(6) Reflecting on the process and consolidating the practice. Evaluating the new model and the process, and consolidating the new practices into a new stable form of activity.
(From Hill et al. 2007)
In designing and implementing the methodology, the research team drew on the principles, concepts and tools of CHAT and DWR activity theory. Engestro¨m (2001) describes the five principles that underpin activity theory.
The activity system, seen in its relationships to networks of other systems, is the unit of analysis. The activity is collective, oriented towards an “object” and mediated (e.g. by rules or cultural norms).
Multivoicedness. An activity system is always a community of many points of view, traditions and interests, both individual and collective. This multivoicedness is amplified in networks of interacting systems.
An activity system is the result of historical evolution. What happens now can only be fully understood against its own history.
Contradictions are the basis of development. Contradictions are not problems or conflicts, but deeply embedded structural tensions between elements of the system.Problems or conflicts signify the presence of contradictions.
The possibility of expansive transformation or expansive learning is always there. Such journeys towards whole new sets of objects and purpose are shared and deliberate.
Expansive, or developmental, transformations in the activity system can be stimulated through the cycle of expansive learning.
The cycle of expansive learning
The cycle of expansive learning is based on a cultural-historical analysis of the system (Engestro¨m, 1987). Research on the apple industry corresponded with the stages of the cycle described below (adapted from Engestro¨m et al., 1996; and see also Engestrom et al., 1995, pp. 12-13):
(1) Questioning. Criticising aspects of accepted practice and existing knowledge.
(2) Analysing the situation. In discussion, by thinking or in practice. Two types of analysis are used:. historical: seeks to explain the situation by tracing its origin and evolution using similar techniques to those used in anthropology (e.g. ethnography); and actual-empirical: seeks to explain the current problematic situation by constructing a picture of its inner relationships.
(3) Modelling the newly-found explanatory relationship. Constructing an explicit, simplified model of the new idea that explains, and offers a solution to, the
situation.
(4) Examining the model. Operating, running and experimenting on the model in order to fully grasp its dynamics, potentials and limitations.
(5) Implementing the new model. Making the model concrete, by means of practical applications (e.g. pilots).
(6) Reflecting on the process and consolidating the practice. Evaluating the new model and the process, and consolidating the new practices into a new stable form of activity.
(From Hill et al. 2007)
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Is the Change Laboratory a consultancy? If not, what is the difference?
In a recent discussion between academics in the XMCA discussion list (xmca Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14), there was a question to Professor Yrjo Engeström about the difference between Change Laboratory and consultancy. His answer was:
A brief response to Steve Gabosch:
Business management consulting is a rather big for-profit industry. Some of its basic characteristics are: (a) consultants do it to make profit, (b) they produce their analyses and recommendations for management, not for the entire working community of a client organization to share, (c) the analyses and recommendations are proprietary and confidential, they are typically not published, (d) the methods and procedures used by the consultants are not subject to critical peer review.
Every project I undertake to study an organization, including projects which use the Change Laboratory as their method, follows a set of entirely different principles, namely: (a) it is not conducted to make profit; when the target organization agrees to fund some part of a project, it does so by entering into a research contract with my university, and the money received (besides the overhead) is spent on the salaries of members of my research group, typically doctoral students and postdocs, (b) the knowledge we produce in a project is made available to the entire working community of the organization, usually with special emphasis on trade union representation in the
monitoring of the project, (c) the analyses and findings are published, preferably in peer-reviewed journals and books but also in more popular publications, (d) our methods and procedures are made explicit, published, and subject to critical peer review.
Cheers,
Yrjö Engeström
A brief response to Steve Gabosch:
Business management consulting is a rather big for-profit industry. Some of its basic characteristics are: (a) consultants do it to make profit, (b) they produce their analyses and recommendations for management, not for the entire working community of a client organization to share, (c) the analyses and recommendations are proprietary and confidential, they are typically not published, (d) the methods and procedures used by the consultants are not subject to critical peer review.
Every project I undertake to study an organization, including projects which use the Change Laboratory as their method, follows a set of entirely different principles, namely: (a) it is not conducted to make profit; when the target organization agrees to fund some part of a project, it does so by entering into a research contract with my university, and the money received (besides the overhead) is spent on the salaries of members of my research group, typically doctoral students and postdocs, (b) the knowledge we produce in a project is made available to the entire working community of the organization, usually with special emphasis on trade union representation in the
monitoring of the project, (c) the analyses and findings are published, preferably in peer-reviewed journals and books but also in more popular publications, (d) our methods and procedures are made explicit, published, and subject to critical peer review.
Cheers,
Yrjö Engeström
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
THE STRUCTURE AND SETUP OF THE CHANGE LABORATORY
The central tool of the Change Laboratory is a 3x3 set of surfaces for representing the work activity. Workers participating in the Change Laboratory process are facing the surfaces, aided by a scribe appointed from among them as well as by video equipment and available additional tools such as relevant databases and a reference library (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Prototypical layout of the Change Laboratory
The horizontal dimension of the surfaces represents different levels of abstraction and theoretical generalization. At one end, the mirror surface is used to represent and examine experiences from work practice, particularly problem situations and disturbances, but also novel innovative solutions. Videotaped work episodes as well as stories, interviews, customer feedback and regular performance statistics are used in the mirror.
At the other end, the model/vision surface is reserved for theoretical tools and conceptual analysis. The complex triangular model shown in Figure 1 (for theoretical elaboration, see Engeström, 1987) is used to analyze the systemic quality and interconnections of work activity. Systemic roots of specific but recurring problems and disturbances are traced and conceptualized as inner contradictions of the activity system. In addition, a general model of the steps of an expansive learning cycle is used on this surface, to enable the workers to analyze the current and projected next stage of the evolution of their activity (Figure 2; see Engeström, 1987).
Figure 2: Steps of expansive learning
The third surface in the middle is reserved for ideas and tools. In analysis of problem situations and in the design of a new model for the work activity, intermediate cognitive tools (Norman, 1993) such as schedules and flowcharts of processes, layout pictures and diagrams of organizational structures, categorizations of interview responses, formulas for calculating costs, or techniques for idea generation and problem solving, including simulations and role playing, are often needed. As the participants move between the experiential mirror and the theoretical model/vision, they also produce intermediate ideas and partial solutions, to be tested and experimented with. These, too, are represented on the middle surface.
The vertical dimension of the surfaces represents movement in time, between the past, the present, and the future. Work in the Change Laboratory typically starts with the mirror of present problems. It then moves to trace the roots of current trouble by mirroring experiences from the past and by modeling the past activity system. The work then proceeds to model the current activity and its inner contradictions, which enables the participants to focus their transformation efforts on essential sources of trouble. The next step is the envisioning of the future model of the activity, including its concretization by means of identifying 'next-step' partial solutions and tools. Subsequently, the stepwise implementation of the new vision is planned and monitored in the Change Laboratory. Such a cycle of expansive learning induced in the Change Laboratory typically takes three to six months. One cycle leads to the next one, and within the cycles there are smaller cycles of problem solving and learning (see Engeström, 1996; Kärkkäinen, 1996).
Figure 1: Prototypical layout of the Change Laboratory
The horizontal dimension of the surfaces represents different levels of abstraction and theoretical generalization. At one end, the mirror surface is used to represent and examine experiences from work practice, particularly problem situations and disturbances, but also novel innovative solutions. Videotaped work episodes as well as stories, interviews, customer feedback and regular performance statistics are used in the mirror.
At the other end, the model/vision surface is reserved for theoretical tools and conceptual analysis. The complex triangular model shown in Figure 1 (for theoretical elaboration, see Engeström, 1987) is used to analyze the systemic quality and interconnections of work activity. Systemic roots of specific but recurring problems and disturbances are traced and conceptualized as inner contradictions of the activity system. In addition, a general model of the steps of an expansive learning cycle is used on this surface, to enable the workers to analyze the current and projected next stage of the evolution of their activity (Figure 2; see Engeström, 1987).
Figure 2: Steps of expansive learning
The third surface in the middle is reserved for ideas and tools. In analysis of problem situations and in the design of a new model for the work activity, intermediate cognitive tools (Norman, 1993) such as schedules and flowcharts of processes, layout pictures and diagrams of organizational structures, categorizations of interview responses, formulas for calculating costs, or techniques for idea generation and problem solving, including simulations and role playing, are often needed. As the participants move between the experiential mirror and the theoretical model/vision, they also produce intermediate ideas and partial solutions, to be tested and experimented with. These, too, are represented on the middle surface.
The vertical dimension of the surfaces represents movement in time, between the past, the present, and the future. Work in the Change Laboratory typically starts with the mirror of present problems. It then moves to trace the roots of current trouble by mirroring experiences from the past and by modeling the past activity system. The work then proceeds to model the current activity and its inner contradictions, which enables the participants to focus their transformation efforts on essential sources of trouble. The next step is the envisioning of the future model of the activity, including its concretization by means of identifying 'next-step' partial solutions and tools. Subsequently, the stepwise implementation of the new vision is planned and monitored in the Change Laboratory. Such a cycle of expansive learning induced in the Change Laboratory typically takes three to six months. One cycle leads to the next one, and within the cycles there are smaller cycles of problem solving and learning (see Engeström, 1996; Kärkkäinen, 1996).
Text from Yrjö Engeström, Jaakko Virkkunen, Merja Helle, Juha Pihlaja and Ritva Poikela (1996) The Change Laboratory as a tool for transforming work
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)