Jaakko Virkkunen

Understanding organizational learning by focusing on “activity systems”

Abstract This paper suggests that in order to understand relations between different aspects of organizational learning, an appropriate unit of analysis and a concrete, historical approach is needed. The units of analysis used in representative theories of organizational learning are first reviewed and evaluated. “Activity system”, a concept that is based on Cultural Historical Activity Theory, is then introduced as a potential candidate for a unit of analysis that makes it possible to analyze the specific historical, local challenges and problems of organizational learning and to direct a collective learning process. A case of organizational learning is then presented by using a model of the activity system and Activity Theory-based intervention methodology. Theoretical implications of the case are pointed out in discussion.

On the Methodological Demands of Formative Interventions

Bringing design-based research and activity-theoretical formative intervention research into dialogue is commendable. William R. Penuel contributes to this effort by examining two cases that he considers to be “emerging forms” of formative intervention research in his article, “Emerging Forms of Formative Intervention Research in Education” (this issue). According to Penuel, although couched within the broad notion of design-based studies in the learning sciences, these cases go beyond standard assumptions and limitations of design-based research and take steps that seem to be in line with key ideas of formative intervention research. The approach taken by Penuel has the obvious advantage of showing that formative intervention is indeed an emergent and open-ended approach to theoretically guided research. Our concern with this approach is that the very idea of formative intervention research may lose its rigor and become blurred. This concern prompts us to use Penuel’s contribution as an opportunity to examine the methodological principles of formative intervention research as that approach has developed in recent years. Our goal is to sharpen the key ideas of formative intervention research while nourishing its open-ended and developing character. Our question is, To what extent and in which ways are Penuel’s two cases indeed examples of formative intervention research? We do not engage in a debate with design-based research in this commentary. Our critical perspective on design-based research has been presented recently (Engeström, 2011), and Penuel quite adequately discusses the relationship between design-based research and formative intervention research. Rather, our focus is on clarifying the demands of formative intervention research as a contribution to future discussion of the issues that Penuel raises.

Supporting expansive learning through theoretical‐genetic reflection in the Change Laboratory

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show the importance of theoretical‐genetic reflection in expansive learning and the transformation of an activity.Design/methodology/approach – Cultural‐historical activity theory is used to explicate forms of work‐related reflection, and an intervention method based on activity theory, the change laboratory, is presented.Findings – Different levels of reflection and the intellectual tools needed for them are identified.Research limitations/implications – The empirical support presented for the theoretical ideas in the article is based on an exemplary case. This intervention method makes it possible to analyze reflection as a tool‐mediated collaborative activity.Practical implications – The change laboratory method can be used to support expansive learning and learning to learn in work communities.Originality/value – The paper introduces a less well‐known original intervention methodology to the audience of the JOCM and demonstrates how it connects some current li...

Transforming learning and knowledge creation on the shop floor

Current methods of grassroots level organisational learning relate learning to the incremental, linear development of expertise and mastery of production processes. In the conditions of rapid technological and market development, however, the challenges of learning that workers encounter change qualitatively as a new business develops. Different forms of learning are needed in different phases of the cycle of transformation. We argue that learning by incremental process enhancement is a specific form of learning that corresponds to the specific learning challenges of one of the phases of the cycle of transformation of a business concept. We also maintain that a new meta-level method is needed for identifying the change of phase of the cycle of transformation and for mastering the needed changes of the method of collective learning at the grassroots level. In this paper, we introduce such a new intervention method, the competence Laboratory. We will discuss the difference between learning and development in the continuous improvement of processes and the kind of qualitative transformation of the work concept which the Competence Laboratory is designed for. We will explain the Developmental Work Research methodology for researching and developing work practices the Competence Laboratory is based on, as well as the method itself. Using data gathered in the Competence-Laboratory process in a telecommunications company, we will show how the challenges of learning of a team of technicians changed as the business activity developed and how the team transformed its way of learning. We will also discuss the role of Competence Laboratory in this transformation.

From change to development: Expanding the concept of intervention

The ongoing societal transformation triggered by the information and communication technologies revolution challenges many established forms of activity and tightens interconnections between activities. This historical transformation is a challenge for cultural-historical activity theory and highlights the importance of inter-activity connections. In this article, we claim that the key ideas of the theory that were first developed in the context of experimental psychology and education, namely the zone of proximal development, theoretical-genetic thinking, and formative intervention, should be extended and used in the analysis of developmental processes taking place “in the wild”, focusing on how developmental challenges arise within one activity system and how potential tools are provided by another. In this context, supporting development calls for a chain of developmental interventions within an evolving inter-activity relationship. As an example, we analyze the co-development of the competence of an in-house developer and the work-development activity in a Finnish road-building company.

Why a management concept fails to support managers’ work

Management concepts are both products and instruments of abstractive thinking. This conceptual article discusses the relationship between different forms of abstraction and the practical relevance of management concepts. It focuses on the difference between empirical and theoretical abstraction. The former serves to categorize while the latter serves to explain and construct. We argue that this distinction can partly explain the difficulties managers face when using the management concepts that researchers have introduced. To substantiate our claim, we analyse the creation and use of the concept of a corporation’s core competence. The analysis shows how, in this case, a theoretical abstraction of a novel strategic principle turned into an empirical abstraction, which in practice has triggered unproductive attempts to categorize existing competencies rather than create new ones.

The Change Laboratory–An Instrument for Agency Building and Expansive Learning

This chapter presents an overview of the Change Laboratory method. The instruments and process of a Change Laboratory intervention will be explained as well as the dynamic socio-cognitive processes that take place in it. The chapter also describes the origin of the method and its variants.

Meeting the New Challenges of Learning at Work

This chapter begins with a discussion on the new challenges in ways of mastering work activities and learning at work. The increasing need to master fundamental transformations of activities will be highlighted.

Preparing and Carrying out Change Laboratory Sessions

The purpose of the Change Laboratory sessions is to help the participants to collaboratively take the expansive learning actions that are necessary for carrying out a cycle of expansive learning. The interventionist can guide the implementation of the actions by defining tasks for the Change Laboratory group.

Preparing a Change Laboratory Intervention

The planning of a Change Laboratory intervention can be divided into three levels and phases on the basis of the specificity of the decisions to be made. The task of the most general level is to construct, in a dialogue with the representatives of the client organization, an initial shared idea of the object of the intervention and to negotiate the mandate for carrying out the intervention.