edupars

University-industry partnerships

Implications for industrial training, opportunities for new knowledge

The Authors:

John Garrick, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Andrew Chan, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
John Lai, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract

In this paper it is argued that universities have lost their monopoly on the production and legitimation of knowledge. That workplaces are now sites of “valid” knowledge is a given. The information age affects many aspects of working life and we are now subject to highly automated and computerised systems and networks. This poses a range of challenges for the universities of the twenty-first century if they are to retain their place as a vital part of the social fabric.

Article Type:

Research paper
 

Keyword(s):

Universities; Industrial relations; Partnership; Workplace learning; Knowledge management.
 

Journal:

Journal of European Industrial Training
Volume:

28
Number:

2/3/4
Year:

2004
pp:

329-338
Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:

0309-0590
 

1. Introduction

New knowledge is increasingly produced through a variety of work- and industry-based research practices and the ramifications of this for universities are complex and contested. As argued elsewhere (see Garrick and Rhodes, 2000) these changes, and the theories that emerge related to them, have implications on the very nature of what we call knowledge. Questions such as: “How and when it is produced?”, “Who gets to say what, and why?”, “What counts and what doesn't?”, “What is really useful knowledge?” are all at play in this contemporary meltdown of what constitutes legitimate knowledge.

Such a questioning of knowledge and the modes of its production are connected with the legitimacy of research both in university and work/industry settings (Pfeffer and Fong, 2002). In particular, the notion of what counts as research, who counts as a researcher and the assumptions of science also come under scrutiny. Contemporary times have seen a critical questioning of the belief that science constitutes the most valuable part of human learning and accomplishment.

Such a questioning increasingly asserts that “scientific knowledge does not represent the totality of knowledge; it has always existed in addition to, and in competition and conflict with [other kinds] of knowledge” (Lyotard, 1984, p. 7). This tension is found in the approaches towards production and dissemination of knowledge in business school teaching. For instance Clegg and Ross-Smith (2003, p. 87) point out that “for management to be attractive to universities as an academic discipline, it had to separate itself sufficiently from the contexts of mundane practice and assume some of the characteristics of an abstract science”.

Another view of working knowledge holds that for knowledge to be useful, it must be put into practice – words will be words unless it is being used (Garber, 1998, p. 128). Garber's (1998) perspective draws on Descartes, namely:

Knowledge, for Descartes, does not reside in books or in authorities; for an individual to have genuine knowledge, he or she must actually have the experience that counts as an intuitive grasp of the truth of a proposition or the validity of an inference from one proposition to another. In this way, learning cannot be a spectator sport, a passive absorption of what the teacher has to tell. The student who does not have the actual experience itself has no knowledge, properly speaking.

This kind of conflict has been manifested in recent times in university degrees and research programmes that are increasingly accompanied by a general de-differentiation of disciplinary based knowledge, new forms of institutional hybridity and a vocationalisation of curricula. Partnerships between public and private sectors, universities and industries, faculties and business organisations as well as partnerships extending to incorporate the student-learners (Ferris, 2002) can be expected to grow in significance in the first part of the twenty-first century. This presents many exciting opportunities for development in higher education generally and skill upgrading specifically. It also represents a particular discourse that recognises that higher education is a synthesis of liberal and vocational elements – rejecting a hierarchy of knowledge based on professions, occupations and disciplinary content.

Already these developments are accompanied by rapid changes in work as, increasingly, knowledge and information-based re-ordering of capacities is required of organisations, the individuals who work in them and the institutions that prepare people for their working lives. What then do we know about the effects of this re-ordering of institutional capacities in relation to how knowledge is being produced and legitimised? How are people learning at work? How are such processes shaping (and shaped by) global influences, economic imperatives and local social and cultural beliefs and life skills. The new knowledge workers carry with them the possibility (and promise) of more enriched and productive work lives. From the perspective of many employers, the ultimate value to the organisation of an employee is their ability to apply their knowledge.

According to Bowman (1995, p. 69) “productivity in firms depends not only on the aggregate capabilities of individuals taken separately, but on the development of effective interaction patterns and team work”. But the new interaction patterns can also contain and represent some disturbing and highly pragmatic interests. At the epistemological level, such interests are frequently framed by human capital interests whereby people are regarded as economic subjects – as sellers of labour and as resources that can be bought and sold in volatile employment markets. It is precisely the more glaring effects of such changes in knowledge at work that we shall explore.

2.Knowledge at work

Defining knowledge is frustrating, as it can be fuzzy and unpredictable. It is therefore hard to measure and manage. Knowledge is related to experience, concepts, values, beliefs and ways of working held by people and has the potential to be shared and communicated. Thinking of knowledge as an object is erroneous and this view has lead people to focus on databases, storage devices, owners, experts and “certainty”. Also from this view comes terms such as “knowledge transfer” which suggests that knowledge can be passed on – as if in a relay race.

Using the metaphor of the relay race is useful here because it highlights a key objective of knowledge management: to pass on, or distribute knowledge. To pass on knowledge successfully, first it must be identified, collected, organised (some would add codified), stored and distributed. Knowledge management is then a series of processes that have dynamic aspects such as creating, sharing adapting, applying, learning and communicating. The properties that are focused on will depend on how its relationship to action, performance and outcomes. A working definition of “knowledge management” could thus be something like the facilitation of processes that create, sustain, apply, share and renew knowledge to enhance individual and organisational performance.

Knowledge management has become popular in many of the larger private sector organisations and opens opportunities and challenges for universities. The opportunities relate to developing (and critiquing) approaches to knowledge management and forging new partnerships with industry to enhance organisational capability. There are certainly commercial and academic possibilities for development in this area. The challenges to universities that accompany such possibilities include the movement towards shared authority over the legitimisation of what counts as valid knowledge. Commercial influences will, of course, shape the creation of new knowledge and it is important that universities are socially supported to both enhance and critique such influences – without fear of epistemological closure.

Knowledge management practices have emerged from several fields of thought including accountancy, software engineering, social psychology, management theory, information theory and adult learning. The result is a rich mix but one in which there remains a great deal of uncertainty. Swedish accounting theorist, Karl-Erik Sveiby was one the first acknowledged writers on this topic. He focuses on the ways intellectual capital is not adequately accounted for in traditional accounting metrics. This idea was taken up by Kaplan and Norton (1996) in their “balanced scorecard” approach to accounting in complex organisations. During the same period of time, information technology managers, library systems and software engineers have been applying Internet-worked technology for managing information. This conflation of intellectual capital, computer technology and management theory is ripe with possibility for organisational learning and development offering new forms of strategic partnerships among the players involved.

It also follows from this analysis that a good starting point in the development of knowledge management strategies will be a focus on processes that enable knowledge production such as:

• leadership;

• culture and values;

• technology;

• learning; and

• appropriate assessment and measurement.

Identifying the required capabilities and gaps between the existing skill base and those requirements will be essential. This is also a specific example of how university-industry partnerships may be fostered – through joint research projects and consequent training and accredited development programs. All workers, including technology support groups, need to have some guidance and opportunities for continual learning to understand the organisation through the relatively new lenses of continual on-the-job learning, knowledge management and intellectual capital. Indeed, succeeding in the new economy means staying ahead in learning, understanding and managing knowledge that is relevant for the organisation – in sustainable ways. To facilitate positive change, members of the organisation are now being asked to accept that continual change is now a way of life. Indeed, “culture change” programmes are very fashionable in many corporate workplaces around the globe (Fox, 2003, p. 24). The processes of such facilitation (and direction) will invariably be multi-layered, interwoven and linked to value networks. We can see at least three key flows in a value network:

1. The traditional chain of goods, services and revenue (goods and services can include knowledge products or information services).

2. The flow of knowledge – exchanges of strategic information, planning knowledge, process knowledge, technical know-how, collaborative designs and policy development that flows around and support the traditional value chain.

3. The flow of intangible value – exchanges of value and benefits that go beyond the actual service and that are not accounted for in traditional financial measures. For example, customer loyalty, sense of community within an organisation, pride or prestige, image, individual professional development and informal learning.

When viewed holistically, the three flows comprise a whole system that creates tangible and intangible value. They contribute to the organisation's intellectual assets and this is where the organisations’ management of such assets becomes critical. It is critical thinking and critical reflection that are now required for working conceptually in order to exploit fully the commercial and learning opportunities.The push towards a knowledge economy and knowledge workers, globalised conditions of work (including geographically dispersed work communities) and the heightened pace and time requirements to complete projects means learning has to occur at any time or location. Such conditions are primary drivers for the take up of on-the-job learning as distinct from classroom-based training. For us, this signifies a significant challenge for universities to be responsive to new work-based approaches to accrediting learning i.e. recognising that work can be the curriculum if appropriately supported by an integrated learning culture. In many countries, this means the development of closer working links than currently exist between University and Industry to promote the learning that can occur in workplaces.

3. On-the-job learning

There is no hard, factual answer to this question. In the past on-the-job learning has assumed that people will learn simply from doing the job – by osmosis. In the osmosis model, people will certainly learn useful skills from “the doing”, but they will not necessarily develop the critical thinking, analytical and reflective skills that are essential in the contemporary networked environment. On-the-job learning requires appropriate infrastructure and facilitative processes (such as knowledge sharing). In many contemporary organisations, infrastructure will include supports such as a capability framework (or a competency or life-skills framework), a knowledge management system, coaching, mentoring human resource rewards and recognition processes, classroom based and Web-enabled training, and resource management. To implement on-the-job learning successfully questions must be asked about the existing infrastructure including:

• Is there a need to develop additional infrastructure supports to supplement the existing ones? If so, what will this infrastructure include?

• Are there ways of better integrating the existing infrastructure to support on the job learning?

• Are existing supports being fully exploited?

• Do existing supports meet the learning and development needs of the stakeholders?

• Does the existing infrastructure adequately encourage and promote critical thinking, analytical and reflective skills?

• How can any new supports or infrastructure be effectively integrated?

To enable the development of appropriate infrastructure supports, it can be argued that the following three organisational characteristics need first to be developed:

1. A well developed capacity and willingness for “double-loop” learning.

2. Ongoing attention to learning how to learn.

3. Key areas of organisational functioning such as employee relations, work organisation, skill formation and technology/information systems, support learning.

These components are described in more detail as follows.

3.1 Double-loop learning

All organisations “learn” in some form, in a continuum from haphazard to goal-based to “double-loop” learning (Argyris, 2002). As organisations learn more about learning they generally progress along this continuum:

• Goal-based learning can include team/individual quotas, skill targets, financial targets, project plans or training objectives. These then provide a basis for double-loop learning.

• Double-loop learning: in goal-based learning, feedback relates to agreed goals. But workplaces are so dynamic; market pressures keep shifting as do client expectations and corporate responses. Instead of taking existing approaches for granted, employees need the ability to question what they are doing. Questioning leads to approaching problems from different angles, introducing ideas from other contexts and experimenting with new approaches. Critical questioning and reflection thus supplement (rather than replace) goal-based learning.

For double-loop learning to occur therefore, two types of learning occurs in parallel:

1. learning that is related to progress towards established goals; and

2. learning related to questioning the goals themselves (henceforth the double loop).

Each process involves feedback to the individual, team or group, and the organisation with the latter having key links to “knowledge management”.

3.2 Learning to learn

At a practical level, learning to learn means deliberately raising learning issues during everyday involvement in work projects. For instance, during and after projects, consultants (indeed everyone involved) might ask questions like these:

• What have we learnt so far?

• How can we avoid making the same mistakes again?

• How can we build on what we have learned?

• Who else in the organisation would benefit from this knowledge?

• What should we share about what we have learned and how should we share it?

Learning to learn is discussed in various literatures, namely:

• action learning (and action research);

• reflection and critical reflection;

• experiential learning;

• cognitive psychology; and

• organisation studies.

Each of these perspectives suggests, in various ways, that employee ability to learn depends on:

• thinking processes (the ability to tolerate new information and make links);

• learning skills (including speaking, writing, using computers and listening);

• security (taking risks and being able to tolerate not knowing);

• role models (such as mentors);

• interpersonal relationships and skills; and

• life pressures.

In major change projects it often happens that when the full magnitude of the impending change is realised, managers and employees may draw back – preferring to hold on to the “known”. Within organisations, memory is stored as knowledge and perceptions as well as databases, procedures, plans and reference material. It is organisational memory that ensures the “lessons” of experience are not subsequently forgotten.

3.3 Organisational support

Learning is generally not the main objective of a commercial enterprise, but profit, core business activity, adding value and ensuring quality products go to clients are. However learning is important to each of these. An enterprise's core business cannot be understood without examining the relationships between the elements that make it up. In short, the enterprise's functions are not simply the sum of its parts. Various frameworks can be used for understanding an organisation. For example, Sveiby (1997) includes internal and external measures, Kaplan and Norton emphasise the “balanced scorecard” (which accounts for tangible and intangible assets), Garrick and Clegg (2000) focus attention on the ways power functions in organisations and how this affects performance, whereas Field and Ford (1999) look at:

• work organisation;

• technology and information;

• employee relations;

• skill training and learning; and

• core vision or business.

The key point is that whichever framework is used, there are always practical monitors and questions for assessing whether the organisation really supports learning or whether “support” is sheer rhetoric. Here again, key challenges for universities relate to promoting and recognising work-based learning. Ironically, as universities pursue this emerging “student” market, it can also mean the loss of some existing market – as industry will invariably promote programs of learning that are cross-disciplinary and highly contextualised (to the workplace and the organisation). University courses that remain rigidly based on disciplinary and bounded theoretical knowledge are probably most at risk in this environment.

In developing organisational supports for on-the-job learning we have highlighted some key characteristics. We have also shown that there are different perspectives as to what might be included (and therefore excluded) from a good learning infrastructure. Some views will privilege individual cognition and personal motivation, for example, “I learn because I can and I want to”. Others will privilege the attainment of specific business outcomes, for example, “I learn from having increased the revenue of the organisation” (otherwise the learning may not “count”). Others will value more collaborative approaches such as team and organisational learning, for instance, “we learn from our shared experience; we learn from each other”. The different perspectives are not mutually exclusive, but each does need to be accounted for. This means there is no simple formula or uniform approach to supporting on-the-job learning. Spraying people with “one best way” learning solutions no longer has sufficient currency in complex workplaces. The processes of on-the-job learning now need to account for individual learning needs and collaborative approaches at the same time.

4. Conclusions

A main reason that we now find on-the-job learning valuable is that the learning occurs close to (or in) the action. Theoretically, on-the-job learning is connected to experience, and experience refers to what we have done and what has happened to us in the past. On-the-job learning is about turning experience into learning. In this way, individuals, project-teams and organisations can be helped to understand new situations, events and technologies, and to respond in innovative ways. This is precisely where new opportunities arise for industries to work in partnership with universities: in researching and in developing desired training and development options for the future. This includes new ways for universities to interact with industry particularly with regard to accreditation processes related to learning that occurs in and through work (as distinct from pre-set disciplinary based content). Here we are not saying that pre-set curricula is a thing of the past; rather innovative new forms of learning do have their place in the academy's schemata.

With the pace of change, the competitiveness of global markets and the boom in e-commerce, employers are recognising the importance of learning. At the same time they want to see more direct links between their investment in learning and improved individual and corporate performance. Classroom based training, although still useful, is no longer enough to deal with the new demands for learning at work. The new times require new ways for knowledge workers to do their jobs.

On-the-job learning is not, however, directly equated to experience of the job. There must be processes that translate one's experience into “really useful learning”. For instance, experience of professional practice is not always positive or even “useful”. It can be the beginnings of bad habits or poor practice. Valuable learning and knowledge develops over time through experience that includes informal learning from mentors, what we absorb from courses and books (formal learning), critical thinking and reflection on our interactions in the job. Simply doing the job is not enough. In business, the translation of experience into learning might be as simple as an old hand identifying a downturn in sales as a seasonal phenomenon, and thus no cause for alarm. But it can be as complex as a project manager noticing signs of corporate complacency that contributed to problems in the past. These experience-based insights are what firms pay a premium for – because they show precisely why learning from experience counts. Learning is therefore a corporate asset.

Explicitly recognising learning as a corporate asset is a new challenge as is understanding the need to manage and invest it with the same care that is given to more tangible assets. The need to make the most of organisational learning – by converting on-the-job experience to learning and knowledge – and to get as much value as possible from it is greater now, through information technologies, than ever before. In future, on-the-job learning may well come to be understood as a corporate asset. But it first needs to be recognised in ways that are meaningful to both the organisation and its employees.

In the era of “knowledge society” (Stehr, 1994; Barnett, 2003), universities can no longer afford to maintain an ivory-tower approach. They are no longer the monopoly-holder in the production and validation of knowledge. Perhaps they never were, but it is now recognised that the kind of knowledge that is keenly sought for specific industries can have a short-term orientation, for instance “problem-related and generated within the context of work” (Gibbons et al., 1994). This is precisely where universities can (and should) be important – by helping to develop appropriate mechanisms for formally recognising and evaluating learning and knowledge constructed in the world of work and critically examining the longer-term implications.

References

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Clegg, S., Ross-Smith, A. (2003), "Revisiting the boundaries: management education and learning in a postpositive world", Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 2 No.1, pp.85-99.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Sveiby, K-E. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-based Assets, Berret-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, .

بازگشت به مقالات