#97 from R&D Innovator Volume 3, Number 5          May 1994

Organizational Learning Laboratories
by Brian G. Mulconrey

Mr. Mulconrey is president of BG Mulconrey, Inc., a management consulting firm in Austin, Texas.  www.well.com/user/bgm

Once upon a time, learning was for students and working was for employees.  Then came the idea of "life-long learning," which recognized that the ever-increasing pace of change was quickly rendering obsolete what we learned 20 years ago. 

Now we need to go one step further, and shift the focus from learning facts to learning process.  Why?  I think of organizations as processes --they accept a rich mixture of inputs from their environment and spin together an interwoven set of "products" and "services" as outputs.  From this understanding of "organization," it's easier to see the value of process learning--and how R&D is uniquely equipped to lead the rest of the organization in "exploring" systemic connections between processes and products and services.

When we look at great innovations that had a hard time once they left the lab, we see a common theme:  the innovation answered a question that simply didn't interest the organization.  One solution to this common conundrum is to develop a joint process of exploration that will develop the right questions and bring allies throughout the organization into the creative process.   

Process Learning

Bringing the entire organization into the learning process will also tap the creative potential of today's knowledge-based organizations.  The newest entry-level-technician or front-line service employee will engage in this process differently than the CEO or vice-president of R&D, but we can't afford to leave anyone out. 

What I’m proposing is to establish "organizational learning laboratories" to creatively engage the disparate parts of the organization, as well as its customers, suppliers, and even government agencies.  These laboratories will link knowledge fragments throughout the organization. 

Edgar Schein, professor of management at MIT's Sloan School of Management, recommends establishing an organizational steering committee to oversee the learning process: "...the steering committee must learn how to learn, which implies learning not only what to learn but how to learn it.... The committee must first diagnose the organization's learning needs and then plan and design the organizational learning process by creating a set of task forces or learning groups to deal with each of the major issues."     

To create these learning laboratories, the steering committee forms a network of specific learning groups (e.g., new design specifications for a product line) feeding into more generic learning groups (e.g., overall product-development process).  The key difference between learning groups and traditional committees and task forces is that individual learning groups assume responsibility for defining the "connections" between processes.  They relate the parts to the whole on an ongoing basis.  The steering committee is itself responsible for making sure that these connections develop throughout the organization, so that the end result is a framework which ties the organization's products and services to the customer.

Rules for Forming Learning Groups      

What rules can we use to sort (and continuously re-sort) the organization into learning groups? 

Rule #1 - Form learning groups around the distinctions between the organization's major processes.  A natural instinct is to divide groups by products and functional areas that mirror existing organizational lines.  This isn't bad as long as generic groups are formed to relate processes that cut across existing product lines and functional areas.  But in most cases it will rapidly become clear that existing organizational lines don’t say much about the underlying processes of the organization. 

Rule #2 - Group membership must be dynamic.  The groups themselves will continuously redefine their scope and boundaries.  Don't worry too much about overlap, which gives us opportunities for synergy and improvement.  Learning groups will engage employees at a variety of organizational levels, as well as customers, suppliers, and outside consultants as needed.

Initially, learning group participation will be treated as "extra" effort, like a training expenditure.  However, the work of these groups will gradually supplant existing meetings and other organizational forums, until learning groups ultimately become a key organizing framework.  "Continuous reorganization" will become a fact of organizational life. 

Rule #3 - Group members must keep examining information and shifting resources and strategy.  As new market dynamics unfold, new groups must be formed to draw on the strengths of the organization.  These groups can ultimately become the forum for identifying new projects and programs within the organization.

Managers will frequently ask, "Where is the rule that brings some sense of order to this messy network of relationships?"  There isn't one, but the picture only seems disorganized if seen from the paradigm of a traditional command-and-control hierarchy.  When viewed from a more organic perspective, we see flexible teams of employees rapidly reconfiguring business processes or seeking new process innovations.     

The strength and resilience of these self-organizing structures is far from disorganized.  In recent years, cross-functional product development teams have demonstrated the power of these collaborations in everything from automobiles and computers to mutual funds and chemicals.  Learning groups extend this technique throughout the organization, linking each group to a larger whole. 

Recognize Fear      

As learning groups become accepted as agents of change, fear will inevitably create obstacles.  Whenever we move from the solid ground of the known to the shaky ground of the imagined, there will be opposition.  In some cases, it is the fear of giving up what we have (e.g., a seemingly secure position in the current hierarchy) for something uncertain.  In other cases, it is the fear of looking foolish, suggesting an idea that runs counter to "conventional" wisdom in the organization.  Fear must be recognized as a part of the change process.       

For example, a large consumer products company recently decided to "projectize" most of the work.  While a project-centered organizational framework may be familiar to many R&D professionals, it can be very threatening to individuals in other parts of the organization.  In many cases, these professionals have come to identify their job security and competence with attachment to a given functional area, system, or activity.      

These attachments can pose major obstacles to the reinvention or reengineering of existing processes.  But it isn't enough to exhort employees to be more "open minded."  The organization's leaders must forge a new organizational culture which ties the employee's security to creatively serving customers via a "continuous" string of new projects and processes. 

Grow Your Groups     

Despite the potential value of learning groups, they can be very difficult to introduce as a large-scale program, so it may be better to grow them over time.  Initially, groups can focus on processes where learning is most critical—for example, developing a product feature which takes advantage of a newly patented technology or an innovative new approach to customer service.  Incremental growth can demonstrate the value of these groups without major resource commitments.        

Employees involved will take the initial technique with them to other areas as needs arise.  In the meantime, the steering group described earlier can define and continuously redefine an overall "organizational learning group blueprint."   The focus must stay on understanding the big picture well enough to reconfigure existing processes or design new ones.  In other words, we still need the steering committee to provide these local learning groups with an overall context.  The steering group must also provide a framework by constructing scenarios which help individual learning groups consider the potential risks and impact of their local decisions.

The key to the success of learning groups is the implementation of a plan for linking knowledge bases together.  We must design computer databases that allow group members to integrate new images and data, an information infrastructure that will create powerful bonds within the organization. 

In addition to creating connections among employees throughout the organization, these technology tools can also help us design process innovations that bind customers to us in new ways.  For example, each winter holiday season, some toy manufacturers are caught without adequate inventories because of the unexpected popularity of a given toy.  As interactive multimedia technologies are delivered by cable and telephone lines to the home, linkages between children's television programs, video games, and toys based on individual characters can provide powerful real-time information for establishing just-in-time inventory levels.      

These learning group networks will result in the creation of a new kind of knowledge.  The cultivation of this vast new resource will redefine the innovation process in the years ahead.  R&D is in a unique position to serve as a guide to the rest of the organization in exploring this exciting new frontier.  Establishing these organizational learning laboratories won't be easy.  But like previous explorers throughout history, you'll find the journey exciting and invigorating.