Search results

This paper aims to explore the use of developmental evaluation methods with community of practice programmes experiencing change or transition to better understand how to target support resources.

The practical use of a number of developmental evaluation methods was explored in three organizations over a nine-month period using an action research design. The research was a collaborative process involving all the company participants and the academic (the author) with the intention of developing the practices of the participants as well as contributing to scholarship.

The developmental evaluation activities achieved the objectives of the knowledge managers concerned: they developed a better understanding of the contribution and performance of their communities of practice, allowing support resources to be better targeted. Three methods (fundamental evaluative thinking, actual-ideal comparative method and focus on strengths and assets) were found to be useful. Cross-case analysis led to the proposition that developmental evaluation methods act as a structural mechanism that develops the discourse of the organization in ways that enhance the climate for learning, potentially helping develop a learning organization.

Developmental evaluation methods add to the options available to evaluate community of practice programmes. These supplement the commonly used activity indicators and impact story methods.

Developmental evaluation methods are often used in social change initiatives, informing public policy and funding decisions. The contribution here is to extend their use to organizational community of practice programmes.

This paper seeks to develop understanding of how competent practitioners develop into experts through learning expert thinking processes and how knowledge management initiatives can be used to structure this development.

A literature review‐derived research model underpinned the semi‐structured interviews with 21 acknowledged experts from a wide variety of disciplines and sectors. A qualitative exploratory research design was used to study how the experts go about developing other professionals in the field through showing them how they learn themselves and making visible their own thinking processes. The implications for KM programs were developed in conjunction with KM practitioners.

The experts used various methods to make their thinking visible through demonstration of practice and direction of structured learning activities. KM's contribution to this form of expertise development lies in structuring approaches to making work in progress more visible (through technology and process) and through introducing a coaching framework that enables and supports reflection on practice.

The specific context of expertise development that has been studied is those situations where generalized principles and explicit knowledge cannot be readily captured in artifacts. Further research is needed to show how this can be combined with other approaches to developing and retaining expertise. Confirmatory research is also needed to refine and further validate the proposed recommendations for KM practice.

The paper prepares the ground for integrating an important aspect of expertise development within KM programs.

The paper extends KM's contribution to expertise retention and development to include structured support for the development of expert thinking processes.

This paper aims to develop the understanding of how organizations can derive more value from participating in inter‐organizational learning collaborations.

The collaboration is viewed as one “level” within an extended organizational learning system and both feedback processes between levels and the dynamics within the collaboration itself are explored. Seven learning‐based inter‐organizational learning collaborations are studied using a qualitative exploratory research design. An extensive literature review is used to design the semi‐structured interviews undertaken with participants in the collaborations, as well as the convenor of each.

Multiple forms of value are evident (individual capacity building, operational value, affirmation, reputation and relationship building and learning about how to collaborate more effectively), though subject specific organizational capability building is rarely achieved. Two main factors seemed to influence this: individuals not translating the implications of the learning, and the organizations not transferring and amplify that learning. Building capability required a visible long‐term commitment by leaders to the collaboration.

Confirmatory research is needed to refine the proposed framework of actions to develop the organizational capability to derive value from participating in this kind of collaboration.

A coherent set of actions is proposed for organizations wishing to build the capability to derive more value from participating in inter‐organizational learning collaborations. Recommendations are also generated for those wishing to convene a collaboration.

The contribution is the development of the concept of the organizational capability to participate effectively in inter‐organizational learning collaborations, and the identification of a coherent set of actions required to develop this capability.

Decisions are integral to daily business practice. Sound and agile decision making is argued to be a core strategic capability. Knowledge helps avoid the consequences of ill‐informed decisions. Facts and expertise provide content; know‐how about the pitfalls and requirements of thinking through problems in different contexts contributes to sound process. This paper seeks to offer a staged framework to guide organisational discussions about how knowledge management (KM) can contribute to better decision‐making capability.

Consistent with a maturity model approach, the study used an interactive multi‐method design to explore knowledge and decision making with experienced practitioners. Guided by the literature the authors collected input via three focus groups and eight interviews with KM practitioners plus 19 interviews with senior decision makers chosen for their good track record. From the combination of input five stages of capability building in five key areas of intellectual capital development were identified.

The output is a maturity model that can be used to assess organisational status in knowledge‐enabled decision making and plan for relevant KM interventions to improve organisational capability across a range of contexts.

A discussion around current status raises awareness of the pitfalls that can lead to poor or unsound decisions. This can help individuals reflect on how to improve their practice, and organisations to learn systematically from past experience, improve governance of the decision‐making process and progressively improve capability by planning deliberate developmental action.

The paper provides a rigorously developed tool for systematic evaluation and planning about a critical business capability.

The purpose of this paper is to challenge an over‐reliance on past experience as the cognitive underpinning for strategic decisions. It seeks to argue that, in complex and unknowable conditions, effective leaders use three distinct and complementary thinking capacities, which go beyond those normally learned during their rise to the top.

A conceptual model of thinking capacities is justified through a review of the psychology literature; the face validity of the proposed model is supported through six in‐depth interviews with successful CEOs.

A model of non‐conventional thinking capacities describes how strategic decision‐makers make choices that are better adapted to the conditions of uncertainty, ambiguity and contradiction, which prevail in complex situations. These capacities are complementary to the more conventional approaches generally used in thinking about decisions.

The paper aims to stimulate awareness of the limitations of habitual mental responses in the face of difficult strategic decisions. It challenges leaders consciously to extend their abilities beyond conventional expectations to a higher order of thinking that is better suited to multi‐stakeholder situations in complex environments.

The paper responds to the challenge of McKenna and Martin‐Smith to develop new theoretical approaches to complex environments. It extends conventional approaches to decision making by synthesising from the literature some essential thinking capacities, which are well suited to the demands of situations dominated by uncertainty, ambiguity and contradiction.