Creating Connectedness: The Role of Social Research in Innovation Policy (American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph)

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

Dialogues on Work and Innovation The book series as

Dialogues on Work arul Innovation presents empirically based studies as well

theoretical discussions on the practice of organizational renewal.

Its publications reflect the increasingly urgent need for the development of new forms of work organization. In today's interdependent world, workplace reform and organizational effectiveness are no longer solely the concern of individual organizations; the local and the global have become closely interconnected.

DUJlogues on Work and Innollalion mirrors the fact that enterprise development and societal development cannot be kept separate. Furthermore, the Series focuses on the dialogue between theory and practice, and thus on the mutuality ofknowledge and action, of research and development. The

Di��s stress the critical significance of joint reflexivity in action­

oriented research and the necessity for participatory processes in organizational change.

Editors Hans van Beinum, Halmstad University (Editor-in-Chief) Richard Ennals, Kingston University Wemer Fricke, Friedrich Ebert Stiftun� Bonn 0yvind PAlshaugen, Work Research Institute, Oslo

Editorial Board Oguz Babiiroglu (Bill:ent University, Ankara); Claude Faucheux (CREDS, Fontainebkau); Davydd J. Greenwood (ComeU Unil.'ersity); �nis Gregory (Ruskin Colltgr, Oxford); Bjom GustavSCl (Wort

Research lnstilute, Oslo); Friso den Hertog (University of Limbwg); Frieder Naschold (Wisse�­ zmlrum. Gks.

Berlin); Kurt Aagaard Nielsen (Roskilde Unil.'ersity); Robert Putnam (Action Design Associ­

NGlick. USA); Annemieltr Roobeek ( Unil.'ersity of AmstmiGm); John Shatter ( U..WU'Sity of New

Hampshire); Stephen Toulmin (Unil.'ersity of Southern CaU,{ontUJ); Rene

van

der Vlist (Unillersity of

Leiden).

Volume13 Bjsm Gustavsen, HAkon Finne and Bo Oscarsson Creating Connectedness The role of social research in innovation policy

Creating Connectedness The role of social research in innovation policy

BJ0RN GUSTAVSEN HAKON FINNE BO OSCARSSON

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY A MS TE R DAM I PH I LAD EL PH I A

00

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences - Pcrmancncr of Paper fM Printed

TM

library Ma�rials, ANSI Z39--t8-198+

Linary of

Congrna Cataloging-io-Publication

Data

Gustavscn, Bjam.

Creating conncctedncss : the role of social

rnearch

in innovation policy / Bjmn Gustavscn,

Hilum Finne, Bo Oscarsson.

p. cm. - (Dialogues on worlc and innovation, ISSN 1)84-6�1 ; V.13) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Organizational changc-Norway . .2.. Industrial concrntration-Norway. ) Business nctworlcs­ ·

-Norway. I. Finne. Halcon. 11. Oscarsson. Bo. Ill. Title. IV. Series. HD58.8.G867

.2.001

))8'.o64'0948I--da1

ISBN 90 .2.7.2. 1783

I

.2.0010.2.5174

(Eur.) /I s88u 049 4 (US) (Ph.)

Q .2.001 - John �jamins Publishing Company No part of this boolc may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without wri�n permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. John Benjamins North America

·

·

P.O.Box 75577 1070 AM Amsterdam The Netherlands P.O.Box .2.7519 Philadelphia PA 19118-o519 USA ·

·

·

·

Table of contents

Acknowledgements

xi

Chapter 1. Introduction

1 1 3 5 11 14 16

The theme of the book Entering a new Mtllennium Development coalitions: Five challenges The concept of innovation Enterprise Development 2000 The organization of the book

PART 1: ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT 2000: OVERVIEW

19

Chapter 2. Initiation and early history

21

HMcon Flnne The institutional actors and their Interests Research on development and deployment of technology Applied social research for understanding organizations The emergence of Enterprise Development 2000 The program proposal Primary objective Combining research-driven and user-driven approaches Recruitment of researchers and enterprises Research agendas Funding The mid-term review and the operationaltzatton of objectives

21 23 23 24 25 27 28 29 31 33 35

Chapter 3. The impact of ED 2000

39

Introduction The report to the Benchmarktng group - Nlls Arne Bakke Some points from the perspective of the labor market parties Lars Hunn and P�l Lynne Hansen The report of the Benchmarktng Group: main perspectives and conclusions - Bo Oscarsson In co-operation with Evelyn Polzhuber. Phlllp Cooke. Robert Amkll and Frleder Naschold A new Initiative: Value Creation 20 1 0

39 41 48

61 66

vi

C REATING C ONNEC TE DNESS

PART ll : HISTORICAL ROOTS AND POINTS OF DEPARTURE

71

Chapter 4. Social partnership and workplace development

73

Bjom Gustavsen Introduction Conflict and co-operation in working life The agreement on development The first maJor evaluation and the restructuring of the agreement Current proJects Some lines of evolution

73 73 74 78 81 82

Chapter 5. Research and the challenges of working life Bjom Gustavsen Introduction Taylorism and the idea of a 'social science' Experiments as research strategy and new forms of work organization From experiments to diffusion Developing practices: from · using a tool ' to building institutions Building institutions and the role of research The LOM program and communication as the core element in workplace development The idea of democratic dialogue Local learning arenas Concluding remarks

Chapter

6.

85 85 85 87 87 90 92 94 94 97 99

Contemporary European developments

Bjom Gustavsen Introduction Some general trends Patterns of evolution in some countries Local development coalitions: Some European examples Conclusions

PART DI: THE DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODULES Introduction

10 1 10 1 102 104 11 1 113

115 115

Chapter 7. The Rogaland Module K�re Hansen and Tor Claussen Overview The industry network in the region of Sunnhordland (IFS) The TESA network

117 1 17 117 118

TABLE OF C ONTENTS

vll

The SYNERGI network Co-operation between the networks Goals Assess ing the degree of success A critical self-assessment Research activities Module achievements vs. program objectives Future program design: some suggestions Summary of results and experiences Editorial highlights

1 18 1 18 1 19 121 1 22 1 26 1 28 1 29 1 32 1 33

Chapter 8. The Work Research Imtitute Module 0yvlnd PMshaugen. Thoralf U. Qvale and Per H Engelstad The Work Research Institute The main purposes of the module Criteria for and measurement of success Critical self-evaluation The enterprises within the technology and food industries The process industry group Future program design proposals Research results and future research prospects Editorial highlights

1 37 1 37 1 37 1 38 1 40 141 1 47 1 50 1 52 1 55

Chapter 9. The TroiDS8 module Gelr Bye. Tur/d Mo/den;ps and Jarle LBvland 1 59 Goals 1 59 1 60 Assessment Internal evaluation 1 62 1 62 The enterprises Networks 1 64 1 65 The relevance of the research contributions Assess ment of module results in relation to the main goals of ED 2000 1 65 Proposals for future program design 1 67 Editorial highlights 1 69

Chapter 10. The Agder Module Harald Knudsen and Hans Chr. Gannann Johnsen Introduction Goals A���s Achievement criteria Summary of criteria

1 73 1 73 1 74 1m 1 77 1 78

vtU

C REATING CONN ECTEDNESS

How to measure success? Cri ttcal assessment Assessment of company related achievements From program level to module level Some tentatlve conclusions Editorial htghltghts

179 180 180 185 186 187

Chapter 1 1. The Trondheim Module ]ohan Elvemo. Morten Levin and /da Munkeby Goals Success criteria Cri ttcal self-evaluation Module results viewed In the Hght of the specific goals of ED 2000 Future program design Research results and future problem focus Editorial htghltghts

191 191 192 193 196 197 198 200

Chapter 12. The Nordvest Forum Module ]on Hanssen-Bauer 203 lntroductlon 203 The alms of the module 205 Criteria and measures of success 207 208 What we have achieved: a self-critical assessment Evaluation of the overall achievement of the Nordvest-Forum network 2 1 4 The Nordvest-Forum module In the ED 2000 program 215 Editorial htghltghts 217

Chapter 13. The FAFO-NHH module Tom Colbjernsen and Eivind Falkum Goals Research goals Some reflections Critical remarks on our own module Recommendations for future program design Recommendations for future research and development Editorial htghltghts

219 219 219 221 222 224 226 227

PART IV: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

229

Chapter 14. Innovation: Working together to achieve the unique

231 231 233

lntroductlon A recapitulation of points of departure

TABLE OF C ONTENTS

Research, Innovation and the unique Three generations of approaches to development Connectedness and relational-responsive contexts Moving by differences Dtalogtc relationships The role of ' the university' Legttlmacy and the social partners Conclusions References

lx 237 241 244 247 253 258 261 265 273

Acknowledgements

This book is based on experiences from a workplace development program that encompassed close to 1 00 researchers - when all are counted - and a similar number of enterprises. The purpose of organizing a program is not only to create a Joint administrative umbrella over a number of projects but also to approach the kind of interactive learning characteristic of a modem innovation system. In such a context people learn from working together on Joint tasks. However. when such experiences have to be recounted in writing. some problems emerge. The one who writes the final paper may be only one of a number of people who have created ' the story behind ' . There wtll. furthermore, be more than one story to tell and there is a need to relate the different stories to each other without each story losing its distinctive character. The aim of the editors has been to create a linking framework but otherwise to let the stories stand on their own feet and appear under the names of their original authors. Since much of the material was initially written for other purposes. a certain amount of edtttng has been neces­ sary. The chapters and sections with no specific authorship given have been written by the editors collectively. Since the number of people who have, in some way or another, put their mark on the program is substantial there is no possibtltty to mention them all here. We should. however. like to acknowledge the members of the program board for having been intensively involved in the program. each one of them having put a lot of effort into making it a success: Ottar Henrtksen (Chief Executive Officer, Raufoss ASA, chair during the first part of the program) : Kate Lathe (Senior Vice President Human Resources, ABB in Norway. chair during the second part of the program); Sidsel Bauck (former head of the Retatl and Office Workers' Union within the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions) ; Marianne Ekman Phtlips (Researcher at the National Institute for Working Life, Sweden) : Anthony Kallevig (Deputy Head, Department of Working Life and Industrial Policy. the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions) : Krtstian Skjelaas (Director of In­ dustrial Affairs in the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry) : Bjern Terje Asheim (Professor of human geography at the University of Oslo) : Trand Myhrvold, Vebjern Walderhaug and Elling Enger (vice presidents in The Norwe­ gian Industrial and Regional Development Fund) . Among those with responsibilities for the administration and running of the program we would like to thank Tor Einar Edvardsen and jan Irgens Karlsen for

XII

C REATING C O N N EC TE D NESS

their periods as program co-ordinators and Inger Hama?s Foss, BJom Hoen, PAl Lynne Hansen and Lars Hunn for the work they have done as representatives of the labor market parties In the program secretariat. A number of people have. In various contexts. been Involved as partners In discussions of program strategy and achievements. Thanks are due to Ragnhlld Sohlberg (Norsk Hydro) and Harald johansen (Ertcsson) and to the members of the benchmarklng group. Led by Bo Oscarsson this group has consisted of Evelyn Polzhuber (Agence Natlonale pour I' Amelloration des Conditions de Travall (ANACl) France) : Phlllp Cooke (University of Cardiff. UK) Robert Arnkll (Finland) , and Frleder Naschold {Science Centre Berlln, Germany) . For the final assessment the group was ass igned a Norwegian member, Ntls Arne Bakke (Loglca AS) . who played a substantial role In gathering and analyztng data from the program. Some of the ideas behind the analysis of the program were sug­ gested by John Shatter (University of New Hampshire. USA) who also acted as discussion partner In the early phase of the program. In November 1 999 , Just as the benchmarklng group had dellvered Its report. the news reached us that Frieder Naschold had died. Organizing the evaluation of the Program on Leadership, Co-ordination and Participation (LOM) In Sweden, partlclpatlng In the evaluation of the Norwegian Work Life Centre {SBA) and participating In the recent bulld-up of workplace development actlvltles In Fin­ land. Frleder Naschold came to play a role of maJor Importance In the Nordic countries. His views, In particular on how to use national development programs to meet global trends, came to Influence much of what has evolved In terms of efforts to develop workplaces and enterprises during the last decade. We had been looking forward to continued discussions In the years to come. not least. by the way, concerning the experiences recounted In this book. His ideas will. however, llve on. Finally. we should llke to mention our Institutional supporters: The Research Councll of Norway through two of Its divisions: Industry and Energy and Culture and Society. as well as the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry: the two last through their Joint agreement on development. We would. In this context. also llke to thank Elrlk Normann, Helge Rynntng and others who have had the task of llalslng between the program and the research councll and last, but far from least. Ottll Tharaldsen for Invaluable help In the early phase when ED 2000 was nothing but an idea and the challenge was to turn lt Into a program. Oslo May 2000 BJom Gustavsen HAkon Flnne Bo Oscarsson

Chapter 1

Introduction

The Theme of the Book This book is about a workplace development program that unfolded ln Norway in the period 1 994-2000 . Its brief title was Enterprise Development 2000 , and the program grew to encompass about 80 enterprises and close to a 1 00 researchers. Its main purpose was to link research resources to the co-operation between the parties in the labor market in order to strengthen the role of this co-operation, resulting in the emergence of development, change and innovation. The changes emerging within the context of the program cannot be grouped together under one single heading. such as production. product development, personnel policy or leadership. Rather, they often cover all these and a number of other issues too. The development of enterprises and working llfe can no longer easily be categorized with reference to single themes: practically all efforts relate to the total, or overall, situation of the enterprise and include a range of issues: success or failure is ass essed with reference to overall abilities and performances. A common denominator for the efforts within this particular program was that they took as their initial point of departure the organizational dimensions of the enterprise. This followed from the realization that employee-management co­ operation is in itself an organizational dimension and the processes emanating from this aspect of the enterprise have to move via organization before they reach, say. production or product development. Among the organizational dimensions, special focus has been placed on participation or. more precisely. on involving all concerned: what is generally referred to as broad participation. ' The bottom line' of innovation is always at the level of the individual enterprise and workplace. This. however, does not mean that one can focus exclusively on each workplace as an autonomous universe. Rather, what can be achieved through co-operation between the social partners locally depends on how the social partners co-operate centrally - not to mention the fact that it also depends on how the labor market organizations shape their own roles and activities so as to be able to act as ' social partners ' in the first place. Furthermore, as each separate enterprise and workplace exists in a context made up of other

2

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

workplaces and enterprises, customers and other actors. the evolution of each separate workplace Is Interwoven with similar processes among a large number of other actors and organizations. In short: what happens at each point In 'social space· depends on context. This context Is not only a more or less arbitrarily 'given· : lt can to some extent be Influenced and shaped so that 1t can give support to development. The main focus of the program. and the core theme of this book , Is how such a supportive context can be created. Research Is Increasingly often encountered among the elements In such a context. The contributions made by research can vary from technology via economy to organization, from supplies via production to the market, from processes on the shop floor to leadership and strategies on 'the top floor' . to mention but some of the possible categories and distinctions. In line with the more general nature of enterprise development, research contributions can. however, also relate to the overall aspects of the Innovation process Itself. The contributions offered from research under the umbrella of ED 2000 refer. as a point of departure. to the development or lnnovatlon process In general. · Change ' . · development ' and ' Innovation ' have been mentioned: other words could be added, such as ' Improvement' and ' renewal ' . There are no clear bound­ aries between such words. In recent years, 1t Is ' Innovation' In particular that has expanded. What, some years ago, would have been called 'change' or ' Improve­ ment · Is, today. Increasingly brought under the heading of Innovation. The notion of Innovation Itself has been on the move: 1t no longer refers to · great leaps · performed by · great thinkers' In closed offices: rather. 1t Is Increasingly coming to be used to refer to the more pedestrian. but quite Important. processes of Improve­ ment, product development and the like. often Involving a substantlal number of actors within enterprises but also within clusters and networks of co-operating enterprises, which have Increasingly become a main. everyday activity In working life. They are, In fact, so Important that Innovations of this kJnd have become primary concerns, not only of enterprises and national governments but also of such supranatlonal actors as the OECD and the European Union. In line with this, ' Innovation· Is placed In focus In this study. Since Enterprise Development 2000 set out from the organizational dimen­ sions. the kJnd of research Involved In the program could be referred to as ' research on organization ' . This. In Itself. Is not an unequivocal category. It can be defined as a cross -disciplinary field, Involving a number of academic disciplines In a variety of relationships with each other. In ED 2000 the maJority of research­ ers were social scientists, but there were also researchers with backgrounds In economics, business administration and engineering. When, as In the title of the book, the concept ' social research' Is used, lt Is done to give us a short ' handle' , which does not preclude this element of being cross-disciplinary. It was felt that using the concept of 'social science ' would point too strongly towards the social

INTRODUCTION

3

sciences in a narrow sense. In Scandinavia there are strong traditions of organiza­ tion studies within economics as well as engineering. and researchers from these fields do not see themselves as 'social scientists ' . Rather. they see the pursuance of an interest in organization as part of their own discipline. Traditionally. the role of research has been linked to 'understanding' . to finding out how 'things are ' . For instance: what is innovation? What are the characteristics of a good 'innovation system' ? It is a maJor aspect of this study to literally question these 'how is ' and 'what are ' themes. This questioning. how­ ever. ' is ' not done so much from the post-modem perspective. demonstrating that unequivocal answers cannot be given. but rather from the perspectlve of demon­ strating that research can be very useful. even if the main purpose is not to answer this kJnd of questlon. When used within the context of innovation processes , research on organization may. in fact. have other tasks to perform and other questions to answer. As is already indicated in the title of the book , one main task for organization research is to link actors to each other to strengthen their innovative capacity through co-operation. This is essentlally a practical task, posing practical challenges in need of practical solutions. · Around · such a task, however. we can build a ' pool of intellectual resources ' upon which relationship­ building processes can draw. The main contributlon of Enterprise Development 2000 must be seen as such a pool of experiences. together with points. arguments and lines of reasoning to which the experiences give rise.

Entering a New Millennium Since the first draft of this book was being concluded just as we passed from 1 999 into 2000 it would be hard, before turning to specifics. to avoid settlng down some general reflectlons on where we have been and where we are going. This is especially the case since the book deals with work. enterprises, productivity and innovation, themes that have come into sharp focus in the last part of the second Millennium. It is a common view that we. as we enter the third Millennium. are in a radical sense leaving the past behind us to take on an entirely different future. The past is often referred to as · the traditional industrial society · with Us mass production of goods and services. Us fixed patterns of organization. Us linearity and seriality and Us odd combination of central steering with aspirations of freedom and fortune for everybody. Awaiting us is not so much the post­ industrial society - already a somewhat worn cliche - as the non-linear. non-serial world: a world thought to be characterized by differences and individuality. innovation and development. a continuous stream of new products. new experi­ ences, new relationships. How. then. do we face this new world? It is a common belief that when we

4

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

face something thought to be radically new we need radically new ways of coping. What must disappear is not only the smokestack factory but all ideas and practices associated with it. as well. We need a fresh start, a clean sheet, a new understanding - or, as many would say. a new paradigm. In fact, it is argued that we are already in a · new economy· characterized by information technology, networking and competence as the core productive resources. But how do we actually create this new understanding and the new economy? As human beings we are after all historical products: we have a certain lived experience which shapes our perceptlons. language. and reactions to what happens in our surround­ ings. However much we may wish to be · a new person· we are not able to throw our lived experiences aside In favor of experiences with which we have no living relationship. The sum total of our lived experience actually is what we ·are ' and In this respect we cannot transcend ourselves. To this a theoretician - a ' paradigm maker' - may say that it is true. but trivial. To take on a new paradigm does not mean changing one ' s personality­ what it calls for Is a new intellectual understanding. But Is this sufficient? One problem Is how far ' Intellectual understandings ' can actually be decoupled from experience. Even if we can take on a new paradigm. a further set of problems emerges when we - manager, union representative. ordinary employee or. for that matter. researcher - have to put the new understanding Into practice. When we move Into practice the resources that can be brought to bear on the tasks facing us are just our lived experiences. We have to use those linguistic tools that we master. we have to apply those social sktlls that we have acquired over the years, we have to uttlize the social relationships that we actually have established. Clearly. even these resources can be changed and further developed - but not overnight. Since they are the products of lived experience they can be changed only by acquiring new experience. When we come to efforts to make our new understanding real. we see that we can only continue the life we have lived, not replace it with an entlrely different life. While we are bound by our history and carry this with us into the future, it is. on the other hand. difficult to predict how this history wtll play itself out in new contexts. The difficulties notoriously emerging in efforts to specify events ahead of time have to do with the point that. when we meet and relate to each other, we also create moments and processes where something new is emerging. If not, mankind would not have a history of change and evolution. This brings us to what actually is the core topic of this book : How do we bridge the gap between the past and the future? How do we move from what ' Is ' - which soon is ' the past ' - and into what yet ' is not' ? How do we move from dealing with ' established facts ' which can, if we like, be ' scientifically investi­ gated' , going on to deal with facts that have not yet become established. Is there a ' scientific way · In which the not yet established can be dealt with as If 1t were

INTRODUCTION

5

established? Are there approaches. ways of thinking. that can · uncover the future· before it is ' there '? How far can the new Millennium be understood in terms of the last? Questions of this kind are meant to indicate challenges, not puzzles. to which the answers are given in the last chapter. There is no simple way to meet these challenges. In spite of what research and science would sometimes have us believe. there is actually no theory. paradigm or methods that can replace lived experience as the resources with which we meet the future. To use a phrase from Shatter (1 994). we can never be there ahead of time and it Is only when we are there we will know what it is like and what we need to do. In the meantime, however, we can make some preparations: we can. for Instance. develop relation­ ships of co-operation with others. enabling us to mobilize and co-ordinate more human resources. more experience and more competence when the new chal­ lenges become manifest. In fact. whatever the challenge. there are few cases throughout history when people have lost by working together. while there is an abundance of examples of the opposite. We can see to it that the configuration of actors. our competence and forms of work are such that together we form a viable and forceful development coalition. We can establish links between different coalitions to form broader and more comprehensive networks of relationships. We can develop our relationships so that more and more Information can flow through them. more and more conversations can be had. increasingly complex Issues handled. We can. in other words. prepare for the future through creating development coalitions. What we cannot do Is freeze the future into the image of one specific theory that Is supposed to give us the one and only, · true· . picture of what is not yet there.

Development Coalitions: Five Challenges This book deals with these Issues, centertng on the Idea of meeting the future through the formation of strong development coalitions. The experiential back­ ground Is a specific program In a specific society in a particular period of time. In line with the general thinking of this book . the experiences from this program cannot claim any simple form of transferability to other contexts. In this sense one may ask why it should be written about at all. since there will never be any exact replication of the program and Its context. The problem is that all work place and enterprise development processes occur in unique contexts and acquire unique characteristics. In the same way as the Individual enterprise cannot, on the argument that it is unique. refuse to learn from other enterprises. such a broader effort at change and Innovation as a ' program' cannot do it, either. While. ' in the old world ' the tendency was to learn from parallels. analogies. family likenesses

6

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

and other forms of comparison between similar phenomena, the one who wants to be able to learn in the new economy must be able to learn from differences. With the current drift towards the unique and special on all levels there will. in the end, not be anyone else with whom a direct and simple comparison can be made. As has been stated in a study of development coalitions in Europe (Ennals and Gustavsen 1 998). there is already experience with comparisons across cul­ tural and other boundaries. In an effort to create a direct conversation between actors from three different European regions - Lower Saxony in Germany, Emtlta-Romagna in Italy and Western Sm�land (the Gnosjo region) in Sweden (Ennals and Gustavsen 1 998: Berggren et al. 1 999) - on enterprise development. the experience is that much is gained just because the regions are so radically different. This learning presupposes that the partJcipants can utilize each other in alternating figure-ground relationships and use the experiences of others to gain more depth in the understanding of one· s own experiences. to draw attentlon to aspects as yet unnoticed in one ' s own interpretations, and much more. It is not, however. a question of the actors copying each other. There is actually little that can occur in terms of mutual learnJng between actors who are identlcal: among identical actors each is a replica of the others and meeting other actors is the same as meeting oneself. Consequently. what underlies thJs book is not the hope of being able to convince other actors to · do likewise· . but the hope that the experiences recounted here can enter broader discourses on change. development and innovatlon characterized by far more complex problems than copying or not. Given that development coalitions do not evolve along the same trajectory. it is hard to talk about ' frontlines' and similar. We believe. however. that ED 2000 provides significant extensions of experiences and perspectives, in particular within five areas that are of concern to all who work with processes of innovation. First. how does one approach ' organization for innovatlon '? The growing interest in innovation has given rise to a mushrooming of efforts to identify the characteristics of good · innovatlon systems · . When applying research on organi­ zations within the context of innovation processes it is often assumed that the main purpose of this research is just to identify these characteristics and help the practical actors implement them. This is not the main approach of ED 2000. In ED 2000 the intention was to explore another approach: let research become directly involved in processes of innovation as 'operative partners ' . The challenge facing the researchers has not been ·how to define an innovation system · . but to Innovate. The researchers who have been asked to share the burden of innovating are, furthermore, researchers from the organization field, with a corresponding capacity for reflecting on organization. but from · inside the innovation process · . This combination is unique, in that most ·innovation theory ' is developed by researchers in such fields as economy. political science or organization who do not, themselves, participate in the process. while the active research participants

INTRODUCTION

7

have generally been drawn from the natural and technological sciences with little capacity for - or Interest In - reflecting on questions of organization. Second, the transition of the traditlonal labor market parties Into new roles as 'social partners' In development. The notion of ' social partner' and the corre­ sponding ' social partnership' Is a major part of the economic rhetoric of Europe. There Is, for Instance, hardly any document from the European Commission on economic policies and associated themes that does not emphasize the role of the social partners. But who are these social partners? Is any Interest organization In the labor market automatically a 'social partner '? If not. what Is needed? If the European Commission or the national governments want the traditional labor market organizations to be 'social partners ' , what do they themselves need to do to Initiate this kind of role? Enterprise Development 2000 emerged as an explicit, formalized, co-operation between research, the Confederation of Business and Industry and the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions. Within this particu­ lar context the labor market organizations appeared as · partners ' . This has been the case In a number of workplace development efforts In Europe. perhaps most notably In Germany. Sweden and Finland. In addition to Norway. If the Norwe­ gian effort still demonstrates points of Interest. it Is because the co-operation around this specific program Is part of a much broader co-operation around development. Beginning with the Basle Agreement entered upon In 1 935. the labor market parties In Norway have a long history of co-operation, between themselves as well as with third parties. In 1 982, a formal agreement on enterprise development was created. giving rise to a series of projects. programs and other efforts to which ED 2000 could link. In this way. the Norwegian experience gives a background for Identifying core Issues and concerns In the evolution of social partnerships In economic development. A main point In the agreement on development makes explicit the Idea of 'broad participation' . by which Is meant - Ideally - the participation of all concerned In those processes that are to lead to Innovation. The value of this kJnd of participation Is still not commonly accepted throughout the Industrialized world. and even where it may be accepted there can still be doubts and uncertain­ ties concerning Its practical expression In a fast-moving world. This Is the third area where Enterprise Development 2000 can be seen to provide new experience. Let it be added. at this point. that a limited program In a small society can neither ' prove ' nor 'disprove ' that ' participation Is a good thing' . The extent to which all concerned should be Involved In a process Is a choice that has to be made at an early stage of the evolution of this process. It sets Its mark on the process and becomes one of a total package of elements characterizing the process . If the process Is successful in reaching Its goals it will, after a while, be difficult to say If this was due to the element of participation or to some other factor or set of factors. Furthermore, when participation has become a part of the process. it Is

8

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

hard to reverse this element and ' throw out' those who have been participating. In fact, the problem will often be the reverse: If a process based on participation Is to be kept strong, dynamic and Innovative over time, then the element of participa­ tion may have to be continuously Increased. Neither participation. nor any other element In an Innovation process, can ever be assessed outside contexts of this kind. Working life and Its enterprises Is a continuous stream of Initiatives, processes and events and there Is no way In which we can · freeze ' the sltuatlon at a particular point In time and · sort out' the various Ingredients from each other for the purpose of making an unequivocal assess ment of the relative Importance of each Ingredient. In this way, participation will generally be positively assessed by those who have lt, while those who do not have lt will find good reasons to keep on not having lt. A fourth area where ED 2000 can be said to provide new experiences concerns research. In particular the use of research In processes of Innovation. To some extent this links with the Idea of · action research ' , which has a long history and has given rise to much debate. Over the years a broad range of efforts have emerged under the heading of action research, ranging from highly concentrated experiments In single workplaces to campaign and network oriented efforts aiming at large populatlons of actors. Different types of actors have been focused on, ranging from Individuals and small groups. via organizations and networks to large scale regions and broad social movements. Numerous epistemological platforms have been suggested to help bridge the gap between theory and practice (for a review see Reason and Bradbury 2000) . Compared to the discourses on action research. there are two points where ED 2000 diverges, not from all action research efforts, but at least from the mainstream of such efforts. An actlon research project Is always oriented to the future, In the sense that when a project ' begins ' the social facts lt Is to analyze are not yet there. These have to be created as the project unfolds. and research Is one of the actors Involved In creating these facts. Even today. however, In much action research this process of creating the facts Is seen as steps towards a finished whole: a new reality emerging when the action phase of the project Is over. This Is the time when the analysts starts and the analysts relates to 'established facts ' . 'Action research · becomes an alternative approach to a conventional process of data gathering. allowing research to put something of Itself Into the reality which Is to be analyzed. but essentially aiming at the same kind of analysts. By contrast, In ED 2000 there was more Interest In focusing on what Is done at · the moment of creation' : on those steps In the process where the actions that are to bring forth the new realities are performed. This Is linked to a second perspective: from what time horizon should one work? To be able to analyze · finished products' there must be points In time when something Is · finished ' . As will appear later In the book, we treat ED 2000 as In

INTRODUCTION

9

some sense 'finished ' and subject to an analysts as a program. Such a ' finish' and associated analyses are, however, In themselves. only parts of much broader processes. These processes have to do with change. development and lnnovatlon In working life and the use of research In this context. a type of effort with a history In Norway of more than 30 years. To some extent this history can be seen as ' scattered projects ' emerging here and there In the large landscape constituted by 'working life ' and Its evolutionary dynamics. but there are links and connec­ tions as well, and some threads that have been running continuously throughout this history. Each separate effort Is part of a much larger whole and Its degree of success must often be seen In the light not of what happened ·within the program · but what happened ·afterwards'. By far the best criterion of success Is the extent to which a speclflc Initiative Is continued when it Is formally ' over' , coupled with Its ability to grow through the recruitment of new actors. · A good program· Is a program that phases Itself fruitfully Into ongoing processes. helps Improve on them for a period of time. and then waves farewell to processes that continue to gain In momentum, speed and quality. Any effort. on any level. must, ultimately, be seen within the context of this larger whole. If it Is seen as an example of ' actlon research' the main ·ngure ' In ED 2000 Is a broad, never ending process of development In working life, with historical roots In discourses on productivity, Job satlsfactlon. Industrial democracy and health and safety, but with concepts added - and sometimes discarded - over the years. Even with the current focus on 'globalization' , ' lnnovatlon' and ' the new economy ' it Is nevertheless a contlnuous process. Each separate project or pro­ gram must be seen In the light of Its contributions to this main figure rather than as a free-standing example of total reason. One maJor Implication Is that the kind of research Involved In ED 2000 can seek Its continuity In practical processes. If ' actlon research· Is reduced to 'scattered projects · with no connections between the actors with which research works In each separate project. there Is only one thing that links the projects to each other and that Is the reason represented by research. Even If such reason Is expressed In different ways. it can hardly avoid approaching the form and function of traditional generalizing theory. Then, however. action research tends to become self-contradictory: If reason can be carried from one place to the next In the form of general theory. there will be a declining need for action Involve­ ment In each new context of ' Implementation· . The more reason can be carried In general theory. the less there Is a need for the explorative and constructlvlst functions of action research. If, on the other hand, we do not see actlon research as another approach to the generation of general theory. but as an approach to be used just when general theory provides limited help, generalization cannot be carried by theory. or at least not by theory alone. There must also be links on the side of the practical actors. Research cannot be the only actor transcending the

10

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

local. There Is a need for connectedness between the people with whom we work and it Is a maJor part of an action research effort to help create this connectedness. Actually, even wtthJn the research system it may be argued that the core problem Is not ' better research · on an tndtvtdual basis, but on a collective one. Gibbons et al. (1 994) use the quite striking metaphor of urban and rural land­ scapes to characterize different types of research: In parts of the natural sciences the cognitive territories are densely packed with people who all work on a small number of problems that are thought to be highly relevant and rewarding. The cognltlve space Is crowded, communications dense and competition Intense. By contrast. a rural landscape Is characterized by a much broader range of research Issues, far fewer people dealing with each Issue, much more space between the researchers, much less communication between them and far better possibilities to find a sheltered place ln which to do ' one' s own thing' without being disturbed. Where. In an urban landscape, it may be a point to reach a higher degree of distribution and differentiation to Increase the range of lnnovatlon processes that can be supported by research, the problem In the rural landscape Is the opposite. ' Organization studies · - to use thJs as a catchword for the kind of research Involved In ED 2000 - belong. without doubt, to the rural part of the landscape. Obviously, there are forceful reasons for this and it will be pointless to try to fully ' urbanize' this kind of research. Even In ED 2000 the local, or contextual , nature of the research contributions Is actually stressed rather than avoided. This not­ withstanding, there Is an obvious need for a somewhat higher degree of organiza­ tion within the social field If research Is to become useful In the emergent. often quite ' heavy ' . modern Innovation processes. In terms of the metaphor. one may need to create something between the urban and the rural - a chain, say. of vtllages or clusters - where much of the research that Is supportive of Innovation can probably work best. Including much of the research directed at technology. To achieve this there Is a call for a process that can bring researchers together while, at the same time, they cluster around the enterprises. Again. the core point Is connectedness. To achieve just thJs has been a main concern behind the module organization of ED 2000 as well as the various efforts undertaken to achieve co­ operation across module-boundaries. Above, ' action research' has been mentioned as one frame of reference within which ED 2000 can be discussed. Some of the groups use this concept, others do not, while some use 1t for certain actlvltles while they also assume that there are program actlvltles falling outside this concept. One of the editors has, ln other contexts (Gustavsen 1 992: 1996), proposed using the concept of ' develop­ ment research · as the common denominator for efforts of the kind Implied ln programs like ED 2000: others have proposed something along the same lines (Engestrom 1 993). Another possibility Is to bring these efforts ln under the broader heading of 'Innovation research· . In this way, research can feel free to

INTRODUCTION

ll

become a partner In development and Innovation without having to enter the discourse on action research. Although there are overlapping areas, the kind of research emerging within the context of ED 2000 has an agenda of Its own. The best approach Is perhaps not to aim for a general characterization at all. In all research there Is a deep personal element and at the core of this personal element Is, of course. the Identification of 'what kind of research I am doing'. Not least within an effort Involving - at least more or less - close to l00 researchers, lt may be most appropriate to refrain from a general terminology In this respect. Given a focus on the kind of action that Is to lead to lnnovatlon ED 2000 has a main orlentatlon towards the future. While most research alms at clarifying and analyzlng facts that are already established, patterns that are already manifest. the explicit purpose of efforts In support of Innovation Is to work with facts not yet there. patterns that have not yet emerged. Clearly. when an Innovation process has come to an end lt can be described and analyzed as 'established facts' . We can say what went right and what went wrong. what was smart and what was not so very smart. This. however. Is something we can do only with the benefit of hindsight. At the moment the lnnovatlon oriented research Is being done we do not have this privilege: we do not fully know how things are going to work out. And research In support of Innovation must be judged on the basis of what 1t does In Its 'opera­ tional moments· and not on the basis of · how it worked out· . But can we not draw conclusions from how lt worked out the last tlme and turn these Into tools applicable to the future? Clearly. to some extent we can. but no process of Innovation Is an exact replication of a past process. If it were, 1t would not be likely to lead to much Innovation. Consequently. each operative phase Is also a new phase. In the analysis of ED 2000 this orientation towards the future Is held forth as a theme In Its own right: the fifth of the main themes of the analysis. The reason Is that an orientation towards the future Is not only something trivial, or something we get for free when we describe ' what Is' - the consequences go far deeper.

The Concept of Innovation While a broad, amorphous. program of the kind represented by ED 2000 easily falls under such headings as · change· . · development ' and 'continuous Improve­ ment' one would perhaps. some years ago. not automatically place it under the heading of ' Innovation·. If this has become not only possible. but even natural, 1t Is because the notion of Innovation and the kind of effort represented by ED 2000 have been successively moving towards each other: even though the historical source of contemporary thinking on Innovation, Schumpeter ( 1 939), spoke about Innovation In terms not only of products, but also In terms of production pro-

12

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

cesses, markets and organization. the main focus was for a long time on products and technology. Subsequently, however. such a theme as organization has moved to the forefront. The reasons for this are manifold. such as the recognltlon that many of the maJor Industrial advances made by the Japanese In the 1 970s and '80s were due primarily to organization (one example Is the Idea of ' lean productlon· as argued by Womack et al. 1990) . Edqulst (1 997) emphasizes, In particular. that organizational changes are Important sources of productivity as well as decisive for employment: they are generally necessary to draw the full benefits of techno­ logical development, and organizational conditions In principle precede technol­ ogy In the sense that all technology Is man-made and those who are to make it need to be organized. Second, while Innovations can sometimes be traced back to a single source the original idea' - it Is actually much more common for Innovation to emerge In Interaction between a number - often a substantial number - of actors, In complex processes where the ability to form links between different types of knowledge Is as Important as the ability to pursue one single line (Nelson and Winter 1 982: Lundvall 1 992: Edqulst 1 997) . Third. the dlstlnctlon between radical and Incremental Innovation Is not only becoming blurred. but radical Innovation Is Increasingly coming to be made up by a large number of Incremental steps. 'The big leap' Is as often as not only the top of an Iceberg. under which lies a large number of small blocks. This, In turn, leads to a successive dismantling of the dichotomy between planning and Implementation. When lnnovatlon Is Increasingly built Into every­ day activities it also means that these actlvltles must be open to change and consequently lt becomes less possible to fully plan ahead. It means. furthermore, that all those elements that Influence the way In which people perform their ordinary work become relevant In an Innovation context. such as practical experi­ ence and local knowledge. or, what BJorkman (personal communication) calls home crafts' . Finally. In ED 2000 the focus Is on enterprises and enterprises generally depend on organizing their lnnovatlon processes within the framework of a business Idea or business strategy. Such a strategy must Include suppliers. mar­ kets, sources of financing and much more. and few enterprises can break over­ night with all these elements to pursue something entirely new. Rather. most enterprises tend to seek Innovations that are not too far away from where they already are. so as to be able to positively utilize J ust those sources and relatlon­ shlps to which they have access. While, on the one hand, Innovation Increas ingly becomes an Integrated part of everyday. ongoing. actlvltles, the need for lnnovatlon Is also growing. Few enterprises can survive without a continuous stream of Innovations, few national economies can prosper unless the Innovative element Is strong In the economy as I

I

INTRODUCTION

13

a whole. Given this, one question to emerge is if anything can be said about how to organize this kind of activity. Is it possible to identify certain patterns of work and co-operation that are likely to be more fruitful and efficient than other patterns? Out of this emerges the notion of definable ' innovation systems · (Lundvall 1 992). The notion of ' innovation system· and · innovation policy' are stepwise taking over notions like · research and development ' , ·change ' and · improvement' (Flodstrom 1 999). Although the shift is gradual. innovation more strongly emphasizes the need not only to ·implement' whatever the world market of ideas has to offer. but also to do something new. something different from what everybody else does. Nothing is more difficult than to be 'wholly original' and in the world of enterprises even the most innovative will largely have to draw on what exists. The shift in emphasis is, this notwithstanding, quite important. not least, by the way. since much innovations are actually · hybrids': new ways of linking what · already exists ' but exists separately (Latour 1 996). From this kind of perspective. Enterprise Development 2000 is actually a quite typical example of modern innovation efforts. It does not so much aim at dramatic leaps in single situations as at creating 'waves ' of improvement where there is a pronounced element of · mass' present. as well as a strong element of heterogeneity and complexity. The emphasis is. furthermore, just on dimensions of organization: inside each enterprise as well as in the landscape of relationships, ties and connections that surrounds each enterprise. This notwithstanding, it is also important to enter some reservations about the notion of 'system'. If ' system' is taken to mean connectedness in a broad sense there is actually a high degree of consistency between the core message of this book and the idea of ·innovation system ' . If one moves beyond this to search for general patterns of optimality. identifiable in the kind of 'systems language' that gained wide popularity in the 1 940s, · 50s and ' 60s, often relying on mechani­ cal or biological analogies (some contributions in Edquist 1 997, for example, follow this pattern), there is a need to tread with caution. It may not be impossible to develop certain perspectives or build certain arguments on such analogies. but no effort in this direction wtll be made here. Rather. given the points indicated above. such as the difficulties of creating futures according to theories given ahead of time, the main point of this study is in a sense the opposite: while innovation has to do with connectedness there is no single universally applicable pattern of connectedness that can be said to constitute ' the best innovation system'. Rather the opposite: there is probably no kind of social relationships that can not, under certain circumstances, generate some kind of innovation. In between the universally best and the completely haphazard there are, however, some concerns that can be identtfled, some responses that can be outlined, and some roads that are. under certain circumstances, better than others. The purpose

14

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

of the book is to enter this more relativistic landscape, and to do it from the perspective of the ' insider' ; the one who shares responsibility for making innova­ tion and not only for reporting on the innovations of others.

Enterprise Development 2000 The program called Enterprise Development 2000 was launched in Norway in 1 994. The core aim of the program was to initiate new processes of organization development in and between Norwegian enterprises, geared to meet the new challenges of a globalized economy while at the same time promoting and further developing the tradition of employee participation and labor- market co-operation which form an important part of the historical heritage. As a co-operation between the Confederation of Trade Unions. the Confed­ eration of Business and Industry. and the Research Council of Norway, the program itself represented an innovation: in previous R&D programs the social partners had often participated as. for instance. members of program boards, but in ED 2000 the co-operation went beyond this to encompass joint responsibility for funding as well as for the operational side of the program. The program came to encompass close to I 00 enterprises interacting directly with the program, with a substantially larger number being indirectly linked through network relationships. To the participating enterprises were linked seven research groups based in different institutions and with a variety of professional profiles. Each combination of enterprises and research groups was called a · module ' . Furthermore, the modules were spread throughout the country, cover­ ing enterprises from the Arctic coast of Northern Norway to the Agder and Rogaland regions in the South. The number of participating researchers was about 1 00. if short term or marginal participants are counted, with 40-50 being more closely involved. There were 1 7 doctoral students. In a small research establishment like the Norwegian, quite a substantial proportion of the relevant research community has actually been in touch with the program. To achieve this was part of the program 's design; we believe that the diffusion of action or innovation oriented forms of work within the research community must be built on the creation of open doors for participation from as many researchers as possible rather than on arguing the case of ' action research' in the seminar room . There is little difference between the worker and the researcher in terms of the need for ' learning by doing ' . The point of departure within each enterprise and each module was ' local challenges' ; development needs as defined by the enterprise actors. It has, of course. been possible for the researchers to influence these local perceptions. but only in an open dialogue and only after the local partners have presented needs

INTRODUCTION

15

and Interests as they see them. To ' begin with theory' was actually not under any circumstances possible: even where efforts In this direction have been made by the researchers. the enterprises have generally Insisted on starting with local. practical problems. This, on the other hand, does not mean that the process has to stay with those challenges and problems that are recognised by the enterprises In the early phase of the co-operation. Rather. as the co-operation between research and enterprise actors unfolds over time. the dialogue tends to move Into new fields, open new doors, Identify new challenges. There are cases - such as In the flsh processing Industry - where the researchers were asked to help the enter­ prises develop a quality control system. which ended up with broad strategies for competence development In the local community: there are cases - such as In the engineering Industry - where research was asked to help Improve on the organi­ zational aspects of specific product development processes which have led on to changes In the overall approach to product development: there are cases - such as a network on the West coast of Norway - where the Initial challenge was seen as a better trimming of a given value generation chain which has moved on to a broad reassess ment of the overall purpose and content of the co-operation. While the points of departure have varied, and the ensuing development processes gone In a number of directions, the notion of broad participation has been pretty much a common denominator. A substantial number of cases Illus­ trate a process perspective on this Issue. for Instance In the sense that whJle participation Is lnltlally often seen relative to given bodies and arenas. after a while the perspective changes towards the Introduction of new arenas and new forms of organizational dynamics. Participation Is not only occurring ' In' some­ thing given, lt creates Its own demands on work and organization. Other examples could be quoted: further examples will emerge later. The point of being local Is to begin 'where we are not to stay there. According to an evaluation performed by an International group as a part of a process of benchmarklng of the program 1t emerged that about 80% of the participating enterprises experienced significant Improvements In labor- manage­ ment co-operation and about the same percentage found Improvements In overall productivity. In connection with participation In the program. Between 65 and 70% reported Improvements In the quality of products. services or processes while a little more than 40% reported Improvements In product development or other product Improvements. Something In excess of 20% reported Improvements In marketing and Internationalization. Indicators of this kind are always open to discussion: can we, for Instance, talk about any reasonably simple form of ' causality ' between R&D efforts and overall enterprise performance? Furthermore. even If an Improvement may look Impressive In terms of a comparison with previous performance level in the same organization. lt may still be lagging behind In an International context character' ,

16

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

lzed by rapid Improvements overall. Consequently, In assessing the Impacts of the program, the benchmarklng group as well as the social partners relied primarily on Impressions gained through open Interviews and conversations with manage­ ment, union representatives and employees In the participating enterprises. Fur­ thermore, the social partners conducted these conversations through their own representatives In the program bodies and not through the research groups. On this basis. however, the program was given a highly positive evaluation. One expression of this Is a new Initiative from the social partners towards the government to ensure a political and economic platform for a continuation of the process, but also Its expansion and further development. At no time during the long co-operation between the social partners and research have the social part­ ners taken a similar Initiative.

The Organization of the Book The book Is divided into four parts: The first part contains an overview of ED 2000 : Us background and goals. operational characteristics, and two rounds of evaluationlbenchmarktng, one In the middle and one when the program was drawing towards Its close. This part has a survey character. Its primary alm being to develop some points of departure to guide the way Into the more detailed, operational aspects of the program but also to identify Its relevance on the level of innovation policy. The next part gives an outline of the historical processes the led up to ED 2000 . More specifically: two such processes are presented. First, the evolutton of the co­ operation between the social partners, with particular emphasis on workplace development. With Its roots In the first Baste Agreement of 1 935, enterprise development was made the subject of a specific agreement In 1982. This agreement has given rise to a series of further events and initiatives, ED 2000 being one of them. Second, the way the use of research in development processes has evolved over time. From an early start In field experiments strongly influenced by the soclo­ technical school of thought, the road to ED 2000 has been a long and complex one. Without going into detail. this road will be sketched In the same part. In addition to these historical roots a brief look is taken at parallel develop­ ments in Europe since there are clear European influences behind ED 2000, particularly the regional aspects inherent In the notton of ' module' . The main element in the third part is evaluations performed by the research groups themselves. at the request of the program board and as a part of the evaluation and benchmarktng process. These evaluations can be called self­ evaluations since the groups were asked to look at their own experiences and set down some reflections according to certain criteria. In these reports the groups

INTRODUCTION

17

focus on their work with the enterprises and what challenges they had to face In building relationships of mutual trust. They discuss how to come to grips with enterprise level problems and how to alternate between practical work and reflections on experiences from this work. They trace the evolution of the themes and concerns that have guided their activities and note some reflections on EO 2000 and on future efforts. Some comments are added from the editors. not to discuss the contributions but to highlight some of the Issues that are thought to be of particular significance for the conclusions. The fourth and last part reflects on what can be learned from EO 2000 with reference In particular to the themes mentioned above: the nature of Innovation processes and In particular how to use what we ·are today· to prepare for a future that can only to a limited extent be 'predicted' and. furthermore. how to do this In such a way that the transition from the past to the future Is at the same time a process of Innovation, or - more correctly - a process where a main concern Is to Improve on our ability to perform future Innovations. The meaning and practical expression of the Idea of 'social partnership' will be discussed, as will the role of broad participation In processes of development and, finally. the role of research on human, social and organizational issues within the context of such processes.

PART I

Enterprise Development 2000 Overview

Chapter 2

Initiation and E arly History Hakon Finne

The Institutional Actors and their Interests Enterprise Development 2000 emerged as an alliance between three Institutions : The Research Councll of Norway, the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO). which Is the main employers' organization, and the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), the largest of the employee organizations. The labor market parties had established. through their agreement on workplace development a Joint lnJtlatJve. called The Social Partners · joint Action Program - Enterprise Development (with acronym HF-8), through which they partici­ pated In ED 2000. The partlclpatlon of the Research Councll was channelled through two of Its divisions: Industry and Energy. and Culture and Society. All these lnstltutJonal actors have a long history of Involvement with work­ Ing life research, to some degree In co-operation with each other. However. their Interests In this research area have differed and lt was three strands of develop­ ment that eventually merged In ED 2000. Below, we look at each of these strands separately and then at the specific Interaction between the Institutions that came to characterize ED 2000 . Chapters 4 and 5 examine the Institutional context In greater historical detail. Research as a Resource In Workplace Development

The co-operation between the labor market parties goes back as far as 1 935, when the first main agreement - generally referred to as the Baste Agreement - was signed. ending a period of much conflict and turmoll and commencing a time of more ordered and peaceful relationships. The reconstruction period after the end of the Second World War saw the general Introduction of labor - management

22

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

works councils (production committees) In Norwegian working life. In the 1960s the labor market parties Jointly Initiated the famous Industrial Democracy Experi­ ments based on co-operation with social research (Emery and Thorsrud 1 976). While sporadic contacts between the labor market parties and social research had emerged as early as the 1 950s. the Industrial democracy experiments gave rise to stronger and more continuous links. Among the various effects of this tripartite collaboration can be found some of the main characteristics of the work environ­ ment - health and safety - reform of the 1 970s: In contrast to what generally characterizes legislation and associated measures In this field. the Norwegian reform came to Include psycho-social Issues and work organization as main themes, In addition to placing great emphasis on how to organize the health and safety efforts within each enterprise. In particular In terms of employee participa­ tion. Further, there was a boost to direct support of working life research by the Ministry of Local Government and Labor. The partners set up a Joint committee to oversee the experiments of the 1 960s. Over time. this committee developed step by step Into a more complex Institutional pattern of co-operation. In 1 982. collaboration entered a new phase with an Initiative In enterprise development that aimed at supporting workplace development projects with a partlclpatlve design. The Initiative was redesigned In 1 990 and HF-B. as it Is now called, took on a more strategic role with Increased funding. HF-B developed the vision that partlcipatlve workplace development would be a crltlcal Ingredient In Improving the competitive capacity of Norwe­ gian enterprises. In addition to continuing their support for partlclpatlve develop­ ment projects among their members. they also decided to team up with other Institutional actors to further promote the idea of broad participation as a strategy for value creation. The labor market parties never spent their money primarily on research but often used researchers for specific tasks, and the new orientation opened the way to a closer Involvement with research. A political reform for working life democratlzatlon In the 1 980s yielded a Joint lnltlatlve called The Center for the Quality of Working Life, which was designed as a competence center and driving force for enterprise development. It was staffed with working life researchers. and funded by the Ministry of Local Government and Labor together with all the main labor market organizations there are employer organizations within trades and services as well as within the pubic sector. and major trade union confederations for white collar employees as well as for academics - who also sat on the board of the center. Whlle a number of quite successful workplace level projects were Instituted. the Institutional partners were unable to agree on a policy for how to use the experiences from this effort and no follow-up was designed. HF-B In particular wanted to move on and sought other partners for a new strategic alliance.

I N ITIATION AND EARLY HISTORY

23

Research on Development and Deployment of Technology Prime responslbllity for the national strategies for industrial research rested for several decades with the Royal Norwegian Research Councll for Scientific and Industrial Research (hereafter called the Councll for Science and Industry). This councll had a long tradition of allocating some of Its resources to social science working llfe research, usually with the main labor market parties represented on the boards of successive programs. In general . the research had to be related to technology. and it often concerned the work environment and work organization. In the 1 980s, the focus switched to Issues of management and later to lnnovatlon and the diffusion of technology. The last of these programs was called ' Manage­ ment and Innovation In Enterprises ' and ran from 1 990 to 1 992. The proposal for EO 2000 to some extent emerged out of this program. Although a stream of projects was maintained, they were not central to the efforts of the Science and Industry council. The general view was that the social science Institutes could not offer industry very much: their research Issues were not seen to be of comparable Importance to questions of technology. There was some doubt about how to turn the attention of the social dlsclpllnes - frequently referred to as 'soft' dlsclpllnes - to what the councll belleved industry needed. In the period 1 989- 1 993, the Councll for Science and Industry spent a fair amount of money on social research In the context of a technology diffusion program called Business development Using New Technology (BUNT). The research agenda was defined In a continuous dialogue between the researchers and the Council. The labor market partles were not on the board of this program but there were contacts through the smaller program for management and Innova­ tion In enterprises. This gave rise to the recognition that Issues of the kind dealt with In social research could be Important to industry. and some experience was gained In how researchers from these dlsclpllnes could be made useful in indus­ trial contexts. When the BUNT program director later returned to the Research Councll of Norway as director of the division for Industry and Energy. which had taken over the responslblllties of the Councll for Science and Industry. he was prepared to Increase the Investments In research on Issues llke work roles and organization. on the condition that there was a clear llnk between · organlzatlon development· and the performance of the enterprises.

Applied Soclal Science for Understanding Organization Norway has a relatively large social science research community. most of which Is oriented towards the publlc sector. A research counctl for socletal planning was formed In 1 979 and some years later it expanded Into the N orwegtan Research

24

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

Council for Applied Social Science (hereafter called the Council for Applied Social Science). which was later merged Into the Research Council of Norway and Its division of Culture and Society. It may seem that the greater proportion of political scientists etc. among civil servants has made the communication be­ tween users and producers of social science research easier In the public sector than In the private. The kind of ·hands on · . or · on line ' . research that seemed to be required In order to get onto speaking terms with private enterprises did not enjoy a particularly high standing In the Council for Applied Social Science, questions having been raised about scientific quality and lack of publications. One of the major Investments of the Council for Applied Social Science was a descriptive-analytic program concerning management, organization and steer­ Ing, primarily directed towards the public sector. There was. however. pressure on this program to do something In the private sector, too, preferably In the user­ directed program mode that the Council for Science and Industry saw as more appropriate. For some years, the solution was to let this program eo-fund the program on Innovation and management In enterprises.

The Emergence of Enterprise Development 2000 In 1 993, the new Research Council of Norway had just been formed from a merger of the five different research councils that existed at the time. The small, Joint, technology-culture program on Innovation and management In enterprises was drawing towards Its close and no successor had been defined, neither within the division of Industry and Energy nor within the division of Culture and Society. Even though the working life research Institutes themselves were alive and well, social research as a force In enterprise development was marglnalized In both divisions of the Research CounciL The labor market parties. on the other hand, were looking for strategic partners to help realize the more ambitious goals characterizing the agreement on enterprise development after the 1 990 revision and were more ready than before to poo l some of their own resources with those of other actors. Despite the marginal position of social research on working life In the Research Council, the labor market parties really had no other place to go. As a result of their Initiative, Enterprise Development 2000 was formally established In 1 994 as a program with Joint funding from the division of Industry and Energy, the division of Culture and Society, and the labor market parties through their agreement on development. While LO and NHO had been represented on re­ search program boards as separate participants many times before. this was the first time they had acted jointly as Initiators through HF-B. Crucial In getting EO 2000 started, however. was the fact that there was some unused funding left from the Center for the Quality of Working Life. With the consent of the partners behind this program. this funding was channelled Into

I N ITIATION AND EARLY HISTORY

25

the new program through the Ministry of Local Government and Labor. The public funding for the new Research Council was. at the time, so constrained that without this money it is unlikely that the Research Council could have found a place for the new Initiative. Finding a program design that can serve different Interests In a strategic alliance Is often difficult. The Industry and Energy division required not only relevance to industry but high use-value for the partJclpating enterprises and, preferably. integrated social science/technology projects. The Culture and Soci­ ety division demanded high quality social science research. The labor market parties demanded a combination of the two but most of all a high degree of interaction between researchers and enterprise level actors so as to effectively promote and support broad participation as a development strategy for increased value creation.

The Program Proposal The proposal for ED 2000 (English version: The Research Council of Norway 1 996) took as Its point of departure the need for Norwegian enterprises generally small and located on the margins of the global scene - to meet emergent challenges by: Improving their performance In quality. logistics, customer orientation. pro­ ductivity and flexJblltty; Increasing their product and process innovation rate: exploiting the potential of regional co-operation; extending the international contacts needed to be part of forceful Interna­ tional product development and production networks: dramatically Improving their inter- and intra-organizational solutions organizational forms were viewed as being just as Important for competitive­ ness as new technology. Perhaps even more valid today than then, this description was not unknown to research policy makers tn 1 993 and other programs were addressing some of these Issues. However, the analysts went on to state that classical modes of research support tn these areas - I.e., letting research institutions specify solu­ tions for industry to Implement - would be of limited usefulness. The road to implementation of such solutions tended to be long and uncertain. Instead. focus was shifted towards enhancing each enterprise ' s capacity to learn: its ability to Innovate · on line· in Its own activities. Therefore. rather than deciding In advance on what solutions to create, the program decided that this would have to be determined tn the Individual enterprise and In a direct. on line Interaction between the enterprise actors and research.

26

C REATING C O N N EC TE D NESS

Comparing with the 30-year effort that brought Japanese manufacturing to the forefront, the program proposal pointed out that what was lacking In Norway were: a massive mobilization of creative energy wlthJn the rank and file of enter­ prises (or broad participation as a further development of Norwegian work culture and Institutionalized co-operation patterns) so as to gain a new developmental momentum: extensive contacts between people In Interacting enterprises both along value chains and along other, perhaps looser. lines. so as to let Ideas travel and combine freely: extensive use of external competence resources such as researchers. but In an Interactive way In relation to the enterprises: organizing all these elements of development work In a way that secured a tight-knit relationship between development and operations. In other words, research on work and organization was Important In the new context not only because this research could flll ln gaps of knowledge concerning organizational solutions left open by the traditional focus on technology and economics but perhaps primarily because this research had knowledge that was relevant to organizing the kind of processes required. Staging this kind of process at the national level. at least In prototype form, came to be seen as the core thrust of the new Initiative. In order that research could contribute to this 1t was Important: to bring more research groups and Institutions Into direct contact with enterprises: to Increase the commitment of research Institutions to contribute to the development of enterprises: to Increase recruitment at doctoral level to these areas: to Infuse educational Institutions with output from the program. A resulting and Innovative feature of the program was that of a module as Its basic organizational unit. A module was defined as a group of researchers with a common research agenda that would work with a group of enterprises. A module might span several Institutions, particularly If this helped Include higher educa­ tion. The modules would also have to Include doctoral candidates. Once accepted, modules would receive a relatively stable funding over time and have great liberty In defining projects In co-operation with their Industrial partners. Several mod­ ules were urged to work with regional networks of enterprises and all were expected to evolve Into long term, regional or national development coalitions. Development coalitions would be networks of enterprises with a commitment to common development Interests through shared activities. and with research Insti­ tutions Integrated as coalition partners and not just as service Institutions.

I N ITIATION AND EARLY HISTORY

27

Other points concerned the length of the program: a minimum of five years of operation was required. It was also seen as Important to Include many Institu­ tions and scientific traditions, not just those that were assoc iated with the soclo­ technlcal school and not just classical actlon research. Finally. In order to make a noticeable Impact, the minimum financial support volume was estimated at NOK 25 million per year. with a support rate of the research groups of 40 per cent, thus another NOK 35 million would have to enter the modules from other sources, mostly from Industry Itself.

Primary Objective The program was given the following primary objective:

The program shall contribute to the formation of value and help ensure employ­ ment by developing knowledge about strategies. methods. ·ways of work and infrastructure which are necessary to create organizational and Inter-organiza­ tional development processes that will enable an Increasing number of Norwegian businesse s to participate In the front lines of International competition. (The Research Council of Norway 1 996: 4) However general this may appear, lt contains certain points that are worth noting. First, the value generation aspect Is emphasized. This may seem trivial since practically all industry oriented research and development programs In the 1 990s depart from economic rather that scientific objectives. However. for the labor market parties to push jointly for this aspect was not at all obvious. Historically speaking. value generation was not a joint responsibility but primarily one of owners and managers and only secondarily of the unions. It Is also uncommon for a program In applied social research to have this kind of objective. Second, the Idea of developing (new) knowledge rather than Implementing (exlstlng) knowledge Is expressed. Again. In the context of a Research Council program the point Is trivial but In the agreement system it was then still uncom­ mon to emphasize this kind of Innovation strongly. Third. the knowledge formation process Is to be directed towards knowledge of relevance to approaches, strategies etc. for Initiating and sustaining organiza­ tional and Inter-organizational processes of Improvement. ED 2000 was not to be a program where organization Is seen as a kind of technology. Even though the focus was to be on organization. the Intention was to promote new patterns. new forms of work and relationships, rather than specific given structures, such as teamwork or democratic leadership. Rather. focus was to be on processes and on means of relevance to the creation of fruitful developments as such. This was the framework from which Enterprise Development 2000 was launched. Much was left open and the program lacked detailed operational goals of the type often preferred In programs aimed at enterprise development. Cutting

28

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

across boundaries and facing a series of new challenges it was found, however, that to go much further in the introductory phase could easily be counterproduc­ tive. Some experience needed to be gained before further speclftcatlons could become possible. How. for instance. would an inltlatlve of this kJnd be received by the relevant research groups? And even if the research groups did see it as an Interesting challenge. would the enterprises share this view? Most of the research­ ers that were invited to participate In the program had never shared responsiblllty for hands-on support of enterprise development: most of the enterprises that constituted the target group of the program had never used social research In their Innovation processes: in fact, In most cases the previous contacts with any kind of research were sporadic and marginal. To convert the goal into activitles, a program board was appointed, consist­ Ing of two representatives from industry. one former union chairperson who had partlcipated In one of the previous R&D initiatives that led up to ED 2000. two from research, one from the Fund for Industrial and Regional Development. and the two persons within the labor market confederations with responsibility for the Implementation of the agreement on development. Representatives of the Re­ search Council attended board meetings as observers. The board was llnked with a four person secretariat. consisting of a program coordinator, a research director and one person from each of the labor market confederations. This direct on llne particlpatlon from the labor market parties is worth notlng: it reflects the point that In this program the labor market parties were and saw themselves as - eo-responsible partners and not as supervisors. al­ though. with an internal division of work. the secretariat came to function as a collective body. with Internal agreement behind all proposals. An lntematlonal benchmarking group was also attached to the program from the beginning. with the task of matching program development against compa­ rable activltles on the international scene.

Combining Research-driven and User-driven Approaches In the policies of the Research Council there Is generally a strong division between research-driven programs and user-driven programs. In a research­ driven program the money goes to the research instltutions, while in user-driven programs even the research money goes. initlally, to the enterprises. who are then usually required to spend lt on external research lnstitutlons for tasks described In their research proposal. While most of the efforts of the Industry and Energy division take the form of user-driven programs. the opposite Is the case for the Culture and Society division. This difference reflects the deep spilt which has evolved between the social and the technological sciences and the rather different purposes for which they are used in Norwegian society.

I N ITIATION AND EARLY H I STORY

29

The first main challenge confronting ED 2000 was to overcome this split. The way that was chosen to achieve this was to give the money to the research institutions. but on the condition that they were able to develop mutually binding agreements with an adequate group of enterprises with which to work. In intro­ ducing a largely untried resource in workplace development contexts - social research - it was seen as rather difficult to expect the enterprises to be able to themselves decide from their 'zero point' what researchers to use for what purpose. To give the money to the research institutions for ' research purposes ' . however, would not have been satisfactory either. and would not. under any circumstances. have been acceptable to the labor market parties because the guarantee of hands-on support to the enterprises and the people in them would have been too weak. Through the board members as well as the members of the program secretariat the labor market parties were, however, prepared to help the research groups establish enterprise contacts and also to work out agreements and forms of co-operatlon. The program not only expected the researchers to recruit enterprises, a wish was also expressed for co-operatlon (networking) between the enterprises. and. in a more long-term perspective, the formation of more stable development coali­ tions between the enterprises and the research groups. It was also envisaged that such coalitions could link to other public development resources and, through this, approach the idea of broader learning networks and even ' learning regions · (Asheim 1 996).

Recruitment of Researchers and Enterprises With prospects of a new source of funding for research on organization. ED 2000 was well received among research institutions. in the sense that most of the relevant ones were interested in establishing a module. even though many voiced their crttlclsms of the program concept. On the other hand: the consequences of becoming a partner in this program may not have been all that well recognized at the time. The program design left the research institutions in a squeeze between industry-driven problem formulations - often short term and very practlcal - and program-driven requirements such as a more long term emphasis on process and network building. This seemed to remove some of the freedom of research to design well-formulated research projects in the classical sense. It would be a maJor challenge to develop research modules that scored well both on scientific quality and use-value. A particular challenge would be to build a long-term and far-sighted research agenda around the rapidly shifting needs of enterprises operating in a turbulent environment. Furthermore. several institutions without a prior history of strong enterprise involvement were enticed into constructing modules: the trans­ formation would be greatest for these but perhaps also the most innovative.

30

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

In addition, the program board saw a potential In conducting some practical research policy operations by attempting to make certain lnstltutlons work to­ gether that otherwise would work separately or be competitors. Several such attempts were made. four of which resulted In contracts: two Institutes In Bodo and TromsB (both In the Northern regions, but 500 km apart) . both of which deal with research Into fishing. fish processing and similar Issues, were Induced to Join forces. One of the two later withdrew. The Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, located In Bergen (on the west coast) created a module together with the Institute of Applied Social Sciences (Fafo, located In Oslo, 400 km to the east) . While the latter has strong ties to the trades unions, the former Is mostly management oriented. One existing enterprise network with some degree of co-operation with academic resources was asked to scale up this kind of contact. In partlcular to Institutions In their own region. And, finally, social research partners In Trondhelm were teamed up with their technological counter­ parts within the same broader Institution as a condition for obtaining a contract. Altogether seven modules were created. each one a combination of research­ ers and enterprises. although In other respects showing considerable varlatlon. for Instance In terms of number of participating enterprises and the relationships between them. In some cases the participants consisted of relatlvely few. Initially disconnected enterprises: In other cases, fairly large, established networks entered the program. Such differences, however. were not only due to variable degrees of success In the recruitment phase. they also had to do with legitimate differences In perception of what constituted a suitable unit of development. Obviously, with approximately the same resource level, working with a handful of enterprises provides possibilities for deeper penetration compared to working with networks with dozens of members. But the demand was that each module should work with at least flve enterprises, so as not to completely lose the distributive-Interactive element essential to the strategic thJnklng underlying ED 2000. Practlcally all enterprises came from the part of working life covered by NHO and LO. Although successively broadened to Include new businesses, traditional Industry stlll forms the heartland of the co-operatlon between these organizations. Consequently, most of the participants In ED 2000 were Industrial enterprises. Beyond thJs. they showed considerable variation In terms of such aspects as type of Industry, number of employees and so on. In thJs respect, the program came to cover a broad range. from enterprises with fewer than 50 employees to business unJts belonging to some of the largest Industrial groups In Norway. In the presentation of the modules In Part 3 of the book more detailed pictures wlll be given of the enterprise populatlons of each of the modules. On the research side. the requirement was that a minimum of flve research person-years per year should be placed at the disposal of the program. These Inputs could very well be distributed between more than flve persons - as they were. In all the modules - but not In such a way that all would become · marginal actors ' with no

I N ITIATION AND EARLY H I STORY

31

core of deeply involved researchers. It was. furthermore, an absolute requirement that the members of the re­ search groups should take Joint responsibiltty for all the enterprise relationships within the module. In partlcular from the side of the labor market parties there was a very clear need to avoid membership enterprises losing support midway in the process because a researcher happened to get a new job or a grant to go to the USA. Even from a research perspective this Joint responsibiltty was a necessity. Creating and handltng enterprise relationships are complex processes with vari­ able and to some extent even unpredictable demands over time and if these are to be efficiently met a group of researchers need to work together. Learning from the field demands, furthermore. discuss ion partners in terms of other researchers and at least some of these must share the same experience. Table 1 provides a survey of the modules. To some extent it has been necessary to use abbreviations in the table: they are all explained in chapters 7 1 4, where the program modules are presented in greater detatl. Needless to say. such a simple table cannot do justice neither to the indi­ vidual modules nor to the pluraltsm of the entire program. It also gives a static picture and does not reflect development over time. Readers interested in the research approaches at the planning stage are referred to the program · s first Jointly publtshed book (Gustavsen et al. 1 998) . Each module gives a more thorough account of Us work in Chapters 7 - 1 2 of the present book.

Research Agendas Within the context provided by the program it was emphasized that the research groups were, as a point of departure. free to set and pursue their own research agendas. but in dialogue with the enterprises. The only condition was that they would need to reach agreement with 'their own ' enterprises on what factual information pertaining to the enterprises could be included in publtcations. In Hne with the user driven poltcy of the Research Counctl, the intention was to let the research agendas reflect the challenges and themes emerging within the relation­ ships between researchers and enterprises. Since the program emerged out of an existing activity between the labor market parties. where certain challenges and problems could already be identified. a wish was expressed for the research groups to comment on certain themes:

1. 2.

How are viable and fruitful development processes to be created at work­ place and enterprise levels? How are the development processes/development organizations to be Hnked to each other in a number of enterprises. so that interorganizational processes - networks. dynamic regions and the Hke - can be formed?

32

C REATING CONN ECTE DN ESS

Table 1. Modules ofEnterprue Development 2()()() Module

Trom•

TI'OIIIh!lm

Nordve!sa Fonun

Fafot' NHH

RosaJIIId

Apr

WRl

Re5elrdJ

Fisheries 11

Fafo. m-NU. N HH. Mare

Fafo. NHH. SNF. AFF

RosaJIIId Rese.cb

Agder

Wark

NORlJf Soc.

SINTEF IFIM. SINTEF

URivenlty of

�nt.

CbMKlertstlc

acton

Aqt•ulture.

Sd. �h. Trom•.

Nonlland

Re5arch. Bodll College

economics. Matn dJSd· pllnes (mostly 50Ciology. In multi· poiWCal dJSdplln.y sctenc�. approaches)

fbllerles

mu-semem

lndta11111

E.neerp-tse

Networklna

fbll proc· esstng, flsh

fanniJI8

communtry based

Agder CoiJ¥

Re5elrdJ lmobft

NTNU (Norw. UIIIV.

of Sctence and Tecb· nology}

sociology. psychology.

work life sc:tence. pnaecUon engtoeer1ng. sarecy engtoeer1ng.

economla

portfoliO

Rese.cb

Research.

cbemlal. mechlnlcal

nattonal ll!llmlng network

sociOJosy. social

50Ciology. business

UllbropolofD'. BIIIRI· buslne55 sarauon.

admlnlstriUOn. economics.

economiCs,

wart bf� sdence. 11fP1alltt•al Sdence

poiWCal science

sociOlogy. wortt llf� SCienCe,

economiCS.

buslne55 lldmlnl·

safety striOOR. wart science. eagtneerlf18 llf� science produc:tlon �· lndumlal

mu-se���e��t

mecblllleal. busme:ss unlls mostly ft•ntJure. ftsh In ._ge cor· mecblllleal. proces5. ponttons off� energy. processlDg. services sblpbulldlng

meduUIIcal.

regtonaJ W1th wllhln formal corpo· CXJn! rations

fonnal

regtonal: formal stW�ter regtonal:

for dlssemlniUon

mulaple

mllllK· lf tumg

sectars

topical

Wllhln

sectars

fonnal topical

Majar r�h modes

tmdlllonal

and lldJon

resl!lf'tb

mulU· dlscJpltn.y action I1!5NI'dt

�rnenle stn-ey proa!SS proces5 coasultancy. mmultancy. o( tmdltlonal feedleck llld aCIIDII and lrHiepth :Id hoc ICUon research

5ludles as

11f11110Kbes .. lllplt lo erwerprtse change level. processes cwemrdled

sbldles

research.

pncu�

ner/academtc

IIUIVeaUon

action

IHI!IKh. pnx:1!55

COIIYIItancy. Sllrvl')'

feeclblck

tNms

by focused experlmea· llllon at

IH!IWortt IM

Major topics

organtDUon dl!velopment In the fish farmans and processlfl8 lndUSUim

lnlegmted reglooll pmterns of enterprtse IHrnlng JEldpaDDII and eo-deter· developmeal: ni!IWOrtt: stnllegiH and mlnlltoa thin tecbnoJosy. araaniZiuon. symms .. Cl1!llle l1llber management. l!lllerpnse than waste gender value llld wlue perspecuve dlaln lm!ls far produc:tlv· tty and partldpattoa: lmplementm!on studies

ldapblloll of DrBaallaOon I!HrnllJonll dm!lopment. management mentar concepU ID leedenbtp. promote theory budding In corporte . clemocnlcy pncuce. wortt

lnnOVIaon.

envtroameat partletpmtw lllld compett· strateaY uwness

processes

organiDlloll developmeal througb dl!velopmeat organtDUon: promouna

organiD· uonal

lflnovaUoa

througb JEldfiiiM! medlods

I N ITIATION AND EARLY H I STORY 3.

4.

5.

6.

33

How may concepts. frameworks for comparison and international co-opera­ tion (benc hmarking) be developed to facilitate an improved integration between Norwegian enterprises and the front line of international develop­ ments within areas like quality. logistics. product development. and the like? What role does the Norwegian tradition of labor-management co-operation play in strengthening the enterprises in the international competition - if any? Is there a need to restructure the labor relations system and patterns of co-operation and participation? How can business strategies and business ideas be developed that can provide platforms for mobilizing the employees around the goals of the enterprise? Questions of work environment etc. could belong here. The state/the public offers a number of systems in support of enterprise development. How do these systems work - for instance in terms of ability to support long term and coherent strategic processes at enterprise or net­ work level?

This agenda turned out to be fruitful in the sense that all the research groups found it appropriate and worth relating to - whatever other issues they chose to focus on. Several of the themes are the subject of Joint publications. most of which are currently in preparation. On the other hand, viewed in the light of what kind of conclusions can be drawn from thJs program. the problem formulations may have been too conventional. Many of the answers so far given by the research groups relate to how to work with the issues rather than to 'what answers to give' . We shall return to this more extensively in the last chapter.

Funding The initial funding was much lower than the NOK 25 million originally deemed necessary. with a prospect of reaching around NOK 1 6 million within a few years. There was some discussion concerning the wisdom of launching the program at all under these circumstances. When the board decided to move ahead anyway it was because this reflected the general situation in Norwegian research. In contrast to the development in, for instance, the neighboring Nordic countries, where a steady increase in R&D funding had started by this time, Norway was in a period of relative decline. The huge incomes from the oil and gas resources still overshadowed the need to develop new economic platforms and associated innovation policies. The funding level and Us fluctuation was a constant concern. Figure 1 shows the fluctuations on the income side of the program and how the board maintained its policy of relatively constant funding for each module in the period from 1 995 through 1 999.

34

C REATING C ON NECTEDN ESS

20 18 16

+-----�

14 12

O lncome

10

• Expense

8 6 4 2 0

1 994

1 995

1 996

1 997

1 998

1 999

2000

Figure 1 . ED 2()()() income and expense m'er time (AINOK).

Financing peaked in 1 99 7 at almost NOK 1 8 million. Research investments in Norway continued to fall and in 1 999 the E O 2000 budget was down to :r\OK 1 2 mil lion . Contracts \Jw·ith the modules were then shielded by drawing on future funds and the modules were given a warning that 2 000 would be a year of closure for the program at half speed. It is Interesting to note In this context that the reasons for the budgetary problems were not only the general decline but also an Increase in steering level from the fund ing ministries as wel l as from the parl ia­ mentary committee for research and education. These institutions accompanied their budget cuts with more detailed directives on priorities which were Intended to minimize the negative consequences of the budgetary reductions. EO 2000 was among the programs that had to be given lower priority. also In relative terms. Over the period 1 994 - 2000 . the budget had accumulated to :r\OK 92 mllllon. of which 5 2% had come from the I ndustry and Energy division of the Research Counci l . 2 7% from the division of C ulture and Society. 1 5% from the social partners. and the remaining 6% from other sources. Practically all the funds from the Research Counc i l originated from the l\1 lnlstry of Trade and I ndustry . Out of this funding. each of the seven modules was granted an annual budget over the operation phase ranging from NOK 1 . 5 - 2 . 6 mllllon . depending on the work to be done In each module. In addition to this. an unverified sum of the same amount or more has been channelled directly to the R&O proj ects from the project partners themselves and other external financing sources at the project level. While the program was Initially located with the C ulture and Society divi­ sion of the Research Council. In 1 996 lt was transferred to the Industry and

I N ITIATION AND EARLY H I STORY

35

Energy division. although it continued to be a joint responsibility for both divisions. Beyond Industry and Energy being the major financial supporter. another reason for this shift was to ensure that the program was allowed to unfold within a pragmatic and results-oriented research policy context. Within the soda] sciences in Norway - as in general - there emerge recurrent waves of criticism of the kind of on line or action oriented research represented by ED 2000 : criticism that places little emphasis on results and use value but draws on the arguments underpinning descriptive-analytic research. In spite of the point that this kind of criticism was seen to be on the decline in the 1 990s, it was still a concern that it could interfere with the development of the program and disturb the commitment of the modules. While there was still some doubt concerning the ability of the Culture and Society division to provide a research policy fence against this kind of interference. the Industry and Energy division was seen as a more reliable partner in this respect.

The Mid-term Review and the OperationaiJzation of Objectives By the end of 1 995, six of the seven modules were in place - the seventh one was established in 1 996. By 1 997. close to 70 enterprises were taking part actively and a similar number of researchers were involved. A planned contract revision for all modules was undertaken at the end of 1 997, based on a review performed by the program secretariat and board. with assistance from the international benchmark­ ing group. Departing from the main aims and concerns behind the program. the midterm review assessed the following aspects of the modules: Enterprise population: Development processes in the participating enterprises: Network formations between enterprises: Partnership value for the program as such: Actual and potential research contributions. At this time the program had developed to such an extent that the broad and general intentions of the program could be supplemented with more specific goals. In line with a preference for clear and quantifiable criteria, expressed by the Industry and Energy division, the program level criteria were defined as follows - in an abbreviated version. The program will have a population of directly participating enterprises of about 80. The choice of this figure was largely given by the already existing population and the way in which it had evolved, with a wish added for some further recruitment. This may look like an · after the event' attitude to a quite critical aspect of a workplace development program, but this was not the case. It

36

C REATING CONNECTEDN ESS

would not. ahead of time, have been possible to fully predict the recruitment processes to be triggered off by ED 2000 and any specific strategy - in terms of, say. deep penetration of few enterprises versus network relationships to many: a few large enterprises versus many small - would have appeared as a straJghtjac­ ket for at least some of the modules. While the board saw to it that all modules gave high priority to the recruitment of enterprises. it was willing to let the modules pursue different courses. which they did. At the time of the mid-term evaluation different patterns had emerged and the board built on these when they set a tentative figure at 80. Eighty percent of the participating enterprises will establish or perfect their development organization. Eighty percent of the enterprises will apply new forms of participation, and 3/4 of these wtll still be in use after 2000. A majority wtll have elements of health. environment and safety. participation. and equal gender opportunity in their business strategy. Each module will engage in at least flve enterprises and researchers will contribute to enterprise-internal development tasks in all projects. Forty enter­ prises wtll exchange ideas and experience through ED 2000 networks and another 200 enterprises will have contact with these again. One in four modules wtll develop co-operatlve relations with the regional development agencies. Thirty percent of all the projects will operate in an international context. Ten researchers wtll take part in international research co-operation on enterprise development. Research in the program will be connected to development pro­ grams in three other countries. Sixteen doctorates within organizational enterprise development and 1 5 scientific articles on themes of significance. notably productivity development. within the Norwegian co-operatlon model wtll be produced. While the modules scored differently over these aspects. the main finding was that. on average. the program progressed better than might have been expected. given the tlme spent so far and the resources available. The composi­ tion of the enterprise portfolio was considered a major asset in terms of number of participants as well as activity level. The program had also brought a high degree of additionality to the projects of the enterprises. On the whole. the researchers lived up to a demand for · hands on· support for the enterprises. Some of the modules had made less progress in forming networks between the enterprises than had been hoped, but the program as a whole progressed reasonably well in this respect. too. Excepting contributions to the book ' Development Coalttions in Working Life ' (Gustavsen et al. 1 998) , the publication score mostly belonged to the grey literature. Finally. the number of doctoral students could have been somewhat higher (Finne et al. 1 998) . As a result. the program board decided to put greater emphasis on enterprise networking. exchange across modules. follow-up in the enterprises, and research publications. All modules were offered contract renewals basically at their previ-

I N ITIATION AND EARLY HISTORY

37

ous levels of support and with some requirements specific to each module. At this stage. one partner ln one of the modules withdrew: program experience indicated that participation was more weakly linked to the institution's baste strategic vision than expected ln the beginning. One maJor partner ln another module reduced its engagement due to loss of a significant industrial partner because of an international buy -out that turned out to be hostile to continued research engagement ln organizational issues. Faced with the option to recruit a replace­ ment enterprise, the research partner declined. On the whole. however, with activltles distributed on a substantial number of enterprises and research groups. these changes had a modest impact on the program. Two of the modules had been under criticism for not interacting sufficiently with their partner enterprises. Both cases resulted ln the reorganization of the modules and ln one case the interaction with the enterprises was improved : ln the other a number of new enterprises were brought into the module. Several other modules have ln fact also suffered from waning enterprise contacts but they have basically managed their enterprise portfolio more proactively and replenished, as lt were, ln a more dynamic manner. The program board had the intention of not just lettlng each module develop its specific approach to the task but also to build an infrastructure for co-operatlon between modules. Given a funding level more appropriate to four than seven modules, lt was. however, difficult to give lncentlves for a strong co-operatlon between modules that were also competing for scarce resources. Successively, contacts were developed. ln particular around Joint publication. but to some extent also to exchange experience beyond what was needed for publications. The lnltlatives for contacts between researchers across modules that actually have occurred were very well received and lt was decided to make an effort to expand on them ln the remaining period. Most of the publishing was intended to take place towards and after the end of the program. The chief reason for this was of course that before publicatlon there has to be some experience to publish about. However, the lnltlal publicatlon rate was lower than it could have been for other strong reasons: ln the particular kind of co-operation between research and the social partners inherent ln EO 2000. and the assoc iated need for research to work · on line ' with the enterprises, the program board gave the absolutely highest priority to the development of the relationships between the researchers and the enterprises. Without fruitful rela­ tionships here, the program would come to nothing. The narrow funding also contributed to the lack of early attention to publication. With more money the modules could have been made stronger and with more scope for actlvlties beyond the bulldlng of the relationships with the enterprises. It was seen, at the time. that although there were strong reasons for giving priority to other issues than publications, a lack of resources to deal with publica­ tion strategies could create deficits that would follow the program to the end. One

38

C REATING CONNECTEDN ESS

example was the gathering of · early phase ' data that could be used as a baseline for later measurements of advances made during the program. The significance of this deficit Is hard to judge. It Is, on the one hand, real enough. When. on the other hand, the lntematlonal benchmarktng group suggested a process of rather thor­ ough measurement, starting with an early phase baseline being Identified for all the participating enterprises, the suggestion was rejected by the researchers. In addition to constituting too much of a burden In the difficult build-up phase of the program, it was also seen as too much of an Infringement on the right of the researchers themselves to decide on the Issues on which to focus. They were, themselves. on the other hand, not prepared to make definitive commitments at this early stage. The lack of a broader base In the form of early publications also contributed to a lack of understanding of what the program was ' about ' . While, for Instance, technology programs have a product to show, ED 2000 was In principle able to talk only about the production process of the program Itself. And even for this there was no clear design ahead of the enterprise contacts since the design had to be worked out together with the program users, beginning at the local level. Since many of the products of the program remain In the enterprises, the researchers have nothing · material ' to show for their effort - beyond the publications that were at the time still absent. In the longer run, it was seen that only through Intensifying the general society level discourse on the Issues covered by ED 2000, and by creating future value generation polices that could adequately reflect social and human dimensions. would it be possible to really overcome problems of this kind through relating the research groups to something that could be more firmly established on the scene of society. The International dimension of the program was seen, at the time, as perhaps the one element that had suffered the most under the current funding levels, program priorities and under the succession of personnel In the program secre­ tariat. At the program level. the research director has until recently conducted most of the International contacts. The International benchmarktng group was In existence throughout the period, but by the time of the mid-term evaluation too little Information was available In English for the group to work effectively with. Among the researchers. International contacts with peer networks seemed to be at a respectable level, Including doctoral candidates spending time at Institutions abroad: however, direct project co-operation was more scarce than had been hoped.

Chapter 3

The Imp act of ED 2000

Introduction At the moment when the core contributions are made. research on development and innovation is oriented towards the future: towards bringing out ' products ' which are not yet there and which will be even more or less unidentifiable, since they are to represent something new. The ultimate judgement of the contributions of research must be based on this initial situation of risk and uncertainty and not on the situation when it is possible. in the light of hindsight, to say · see how it all turned out ' . This, however. does not mean that any assessment of · how it turned out ' should be completely avoided. What came out of it must, of course, play a role. Acts that actually lead to successful change will generally rate higher than acts that did not lead to successful change, however smart they may have looked at the time of perfonnance. The point is that the assessment of what came out of it is subordinate to the more important goal of ensuring better contributions from research to future processes of innovation. And such contributions are not en­ sured by a more or less mechanical assessment of a given program. the identifica­ tion of a set of characteristics of this program and the implementation these characteristics in future efforts. On the other hand: in working with the process of designing new initiatives to promote innovation in Norwegian working life. all main actors saw some assessment of the degree of success of the program as one of the elements that needed to be brought into consideration. In fact. this was built into the original program design. which included an international benchmarkJng group with the task of helping make this assessment. When it was given the form of a benchmarking group rather than an 'evalua­ tion group ' , it was in the recognition that the success of an effort like ED 2000 cannot be measured against objective standards except rather trivial ones, such as percentile improvements in some reasonably easily measurable variables, e.g. . throughput time in production, number of errors relative to number of products and the like. Even such figures are not all that interesting unless there are comparable figures from other enterprises since even a major improvement in percentages is not all that impress ive if all the competitors have improved even more. The benchmarking process was intended to apply a broader perspective and

40

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

to posltlvely utilize the more subJectlve views and Judgments of the participants. The group came to include the following members: Bo Oscarsson. Sweden (chair) : Evelyn Polzhuber, Agence Nationale pour I' Amelioration des Conditions de Travail (ANACl) . France: Philip Cooke. University of Cardiff, UK: Frteder Naschold. Science Center. Berlin. Germany: and Robert Arnkil. Finland. For the final assessment period the group was also assigned a Norwegian member: Nils Ame Bakke, Logica AS. The benchmarklng process was furthermore Intended to be part of a broader. ongoing dialogue between the labor market parties and their membership enter­ prises. To see ED 2000 as an extension of the conversations on Innovation emerging under the umbrella of the agreement on development was. from the beginning, a principal point. The benchmarktng group was intended to enrich these conversations, not replace them. In actual practice, the benchmarktng and assess ment process came to utilize the following means and channels: 1 . Impressions gained by the labor market parties through their own ordinary contacts with their members. Such contacts occur in many different contexts: a main one as far as ED 2000 Is concerned is an annual conference dedicated to the issues on which the labor market parties co-operate. In recent years. experience from ED 2000 has been a main topic in these conferences where the heads of the national unions and employee associations constltute the maJority of participants. 2. The report of the benchmarktng group, initially to the program board . This report built. In turn, on several sources: Contacts with the program throughout Its active period: A seminar with some of the participating enterprises: A questionnaire study, In principle directed at all the parttclpatlng enter­ prises; A series of Interviews with a sub-sample of enterprises conducted by the benchmarktng group: A series of interviews. conducted by the LO-NHO members of the program secretariat, of a sample of participating enterprises. Self-evaluation reports from all the modules; 3. The report from the benchmarktng group was. in turn, matched against the knowledge and Impress ions gained by the board and the secretariat through their work over several years. Some of this material is presented below: First. the report written on the basis of the questionnaire study. This study was performed by the head of a firm of consultants, who also has a background In research. In developing his report. however. he also used some of the material emerging from the other sources.

TH E

IMPACT OF ED 2 00 0

41

Second, some points from the report written by the LO-NHO representatives of the program secretariat. Third. some points from the report from the benchmarktng group. What is presented below reflects only a limited part of all the material. experi­ ences, impressions and discussions that, taken together. constitute the assessment of the significance of ED 2000 and the conclusions that were drawn. We believe, however. that lt provides a fair and reasonably complete picture of the elements that were assigned significance and what this significance consists of.

The Report to the Benchmarking Group Nlls Arne Bakke The PopulaUon of Enterprises and Projects

In the mid-term assessment (below) the intended aim of E D 2000 in terms of number of participating enterprises was set at 80. So far more than 80 have been involved to a greater or lesser degree . However. fewer than 80 have been involved to the degree expected of a genuine participant. Given that the program is not yet closed (at the time of writing) this aim may still be achieved. Although aiming at overall performance rather than 'sectorial improvement' . the projects were generally developed with reference to some primary themes or concerns. Table 2 provides a review of these themes as defined by the enterprises. These categories are based on how the enterprises themselves classify their projects. Close to half of the projects fall into the first category (organization development I productivity improvement I continuous improvement) and there is, furthermore. a great deal of overlap and other forms of diffuse boundaries

Table 2. Main topics in the ED 2000 projects

Main topics Organization development I productivity Improvement I continuous improvement Supply Chain management / logistics Quality I Total Quality Management (fQM) Networking (supplier or customer relations) Strategy Management / leadership development Wage systems and shift models Product development N/A

Number of projects 26 9 7 3 3 3 2 I 8

42

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

between the categories. The table does give some idea of what the projects ' were about · . The projects pertain to · organization' but with some elements of techno­ logical development involved in some of the efforts. InvestigaUons and Data

In general the survey as well as the various more open-ended interviews involved representatives of both management and employees (mainly trade union repre­ sentatives) . Respondents were asked to complete the survey together. which they actually did when practically feasible. As a rule the interviews included represen­ tatlves of management. trades unions and project members. Survey Distributed to the Enterprises (47 Enterprises)

In line with the distributive nature of the program. ED 2000 started out with about 70-75 enterprises. In 1 997/1 998, a project catalogue was compiled on the basis of Information from the modules. This catalogue included project descriptions In­ volving 66 enterprises. Some enterprises that had signed up at an early stage but which withdrew later were not included. Some of the 66 were at the stage of Intention but no project materiallzed In the end. This group of 66 also includes eight enterprises served by a research partner that withdrew from the program at the end of 1 997. A further eight projects were terminated before they really got under way. After the completion of the catalogue, an estimated 1 0 to 1 5 new enterprises Joined. These were judged not to have sufficient experience to con­ tribute significantly to the evaluatlon. The survey took as Its point of departure the 48 enterprises known to have been active before the beginning of 1 999. Two of the enterprises were pan of the same corporation, and decided to give one answer covering both projects. Thus, In the end, the survey was distributed to 4 7 enterprises, of which 35 responded (approx. 75%) . To ensure a high response rate all the enterprises that did not respond the first time were remJnded at least four times by telephone. During those conversations we received a variety of explanations for the lack of response. For most of the enterprises the problem was a very tight deadltne. Only five enterprises refrained from answering on the basis of the project being Insignifi­ cant or unknown to the respondents. Thus we do not believe that the non­ responding enterprises diverge significantly from the others In terms of project performance. A comparison of the project themes as described In the project catalogue and the survey Indicates no major bias compared to the original universe.

THE IMPACT OF ED 2 000

43

Interviews Conducted by the Benchmarklng Group (Eight Enterprises)

These Interviews were conducted according to a guide set up In advance. but the questions and Issues Involved were given fairly open formulations. The respon­ dents did not have to couch their answers within the framework of a set of preordained categories. The Interview guide covered the following main topics: 1 . The enterprises' perception of ED 2000 . for Instance the extent to which they had understood the basic philosophy and Ideas behind the program and designed their own efforts according to this understanding. 2. The organization of the project, In particular how the project was situated within the enterprise In terms of line responsibility, project management, project organization etc. 3. The primary results of ED 2000, according to their own estimates and ln quantitative as well as qualitative terms. 4. The role of the researchers Involved In the project : were they seen, for Instance, as problem solvers. discussion partners, pure researchers, or what? 5. What contribution participation In ED 2000 had given to the co-operation between the parties locally. 6. Suggestions for future programs of the ED 2000 type. The selection of enterprises Included In this sample was unbiased with respect to project performance. Interviews Conducted by Representatives of the Labor Market Parties (19 Enterprises)

As the labor market parties took part In the funding of the program. as well as In Its operational activities, they not only had an Independent Interest ln evaluating the results of ED 2000 at the enterprise level, they also had the facilities to do so. Together, representatives of the social partners attached to the program bodies conducted Interviews with 1 9 enterprises. About two thirds of the Interviews used the Interview guide mentioned above: the rest were done more on an ad hoc basis. The results of these Interviews are documented In an Independent report (parts of this report are reproduced below) . Workshop with the Benchmarklng Group (Three Enterprises}

On 2 1 st June 1 999 the benchmarklng group organized a workshop attended by representatives from three of the ED 2000 enterprises. The enterprises presented their projects, followed by an open discussion between the benchmarklng group and the enterprise representatives.

44

C REATING C O N N EC T E D NESS

Presentation of results

The presentation of results focuses on key tlndings related to the maln objectlves of the ED 2000 program. The key findings are identitled on the basis of data from all the sources of informatlon described above. Thus we shall not present all the tlndings. The reported results are both qualitative and quantitative. Whenever possible we have tried to cast the enterprises· report results in quantitative terms. How­ ever. many of the projects relate to topics where quantification is difficult, and if the enterprise itself did not see quantitlcation as necessary it was not felt to be appropriate to put it under pressure to quantify purely for the purpose of satlsfying external observers. Furthermore, even where quantification ls possible, it may be diftlcult to decide unequivocally which results are directly attributable to the program. Another question relates to the issue of control group. The rather heterog­ enous population of the program would make the establishment of such a group difficult. This would not be the only source of difficulty, however. Since the ED 2000 projects represent. on average. only about 1 5% of the total development investments of the partictpatlng enterprises, it follows that in establishing a control group one would have to consider much more than those actlvities that were directly related to ED 2000. A further problem with such an approach would be to obtain answers from the control group where the enterprises had not partlctpated in the program and would not experience any - practlcally or morally grounded - need to answer questions relating to something that did not really concern them. The use of control groups, which is sometimes done ln Norwegian programs, is most easily achieved in investigations where all the material can be taken from public records. These problems are not specific to ED 2000 . rather they reflect the general limits of investment analysts and accountlng systems as tools for assessing efforts at development and innovation. This said, we believe that the mix of quantltative and qualitative data collected give a good basis for assessing the results of the program at the enterprise level. As a whole we believe that the results are satisfactory. in terms of showing that the program has produced valuable results for most of the enter­ prises taking part. Below we turn to some of the more specific results and conclusions.

THE IMPACT OF ED 2000

45

The participant enterprises have In general a weak understanding of the core elements of ED 2000 as a program

The Interviews revealed that the enterprises had a relatively weak explicit under­ standing of the Ideas of ED 2000, Its overall design and organization. A main reason for this Is that a main Idea behind the program was just to meet the enterprises 'where they were' In terms of the challenges they themselves found it Interesting to attack. In ED 2000 there was no question of forcing a specific Interpretation of challenges and remedies on the enterprises. Since this Is still somewhat unusual for a research and development program, it may have given rise to some doubts concerning what the program was ' about' . Furthermore, each enterprise had Its primary contact with the program through a local research group and generally not directly with the central agents of the program. On the whole, however, the enterprises seem to have developed projects In accordance with the main Ideas of the program. Development based on broad panlclpatlon was achieved

A main precondition for participating In the ED 2000 program was to base the development work on broad participation. Both the survey and the Interviews give strong evidence that this was actually achieved. Figure 2 shows what share of the employees In each enterprise participated In project design (lower curve) or discussions (middle curve) , or have received Information about the project (upper curve) .

Participation profile 100

"' I,J I,J

;a...

80

=-

60

..s

El

I,J -

0

t

" .c: ell

1

-

\

\

\

"

I I I I I I I

--

""

dellberatlon -- soluuon design

I I I

40

11 I I I

\\

20 0

.

0

.

T ..

20

40

.. T

60

I ..

80

Share of enterprises (%) Figure 2. Participation in the development process.

lnformauon

100

46

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

- 90% of the employees In each enterprise have, on average, bee n Informed about the project. - 39% of the employees In each enterprise have. on average, been Involved In discussions about the project. - 33% of the employees have, on average. been Involved In design activities In the project. - In almost 20% of the enterprises, 80% or more of the employees have taken part In the design of solutions. - 6 1 % of the enterprises claim to have developed new ways to achieve em­ ployee partlclpatlon that will be applied In the future as well. Close to 80% have also developed new organizational mechanisms or forums for develop­ ment work. - 80% claim that the relationship between the social partners (management and unions) has Improved as a result of the project. PartJcipaUon and formal bodie.s

Historically. partlclpatlon Is linked to formal bodies, generally based on parity, where labor and management meet. Main pillars In the Norwegian system are two levels of councils; one covering the enterprise as a whole and one covering the various departments, sections, or parts, Into which it may be natural to divide the Internal activities. In addition, the work environment - health and safety committees are bodies of maJor general significance. In particular In larger enterprises. there have generally bee n special committees for a number of other tasks and purposes as well. ranging from admlnlstraUon of welfare programs to

Table 3. The invo/YPment of the formal bodies for co-operation in the development process

Bodies

Number

% of all cases ( I )

% of possible cases (2)

Board of directors Enterprise councll Department councll Work environment committee Negotiation committee Co-operation committee Corporate board Corporate committee

15 13 14 23 8 5 5 2

45 39 42

58

70 24

15 15

79 42 45 45

6

18

Total responses

85

2 missing cases: 33 valid cases Notes: (1) % of all cases = % of all cases regardless of whether the body exists or not. (2) % of possible cases = cases where the body exists.

65

78

THE IMPACT OF EO 2000

47

efforts to combat the use of alcohol and drugs in the workplace. The fate of this formal system, when faced with the demands emanating from of contemporary challenges, is an issue of major concern, not only to ED 2000 and associated partners but actually to the core characteristics of the social organization of Norwegian society. Table 3 shows the involvement of the formal bodies for co­ operation in the ED 2000 projects. Most of the enterprises rely only to some extent on the formal bodies for co­ operation, such as the department councils or the health and safety committee. The real reliance is probably even lower than the survey indicates, as the inter­ views revealed that the role of these bodies was more of an arena for information exchange than playing a substantial role in the process . This is in line with the pattern emerging within the context of a maJor development program in Sweden, the Work Life Fund (Gustavsen et al. 1 996) : the traditional, formal bodies are receding into the background in contexts of development and innovation. The bodies seem no longer to be appropriate for this kind of task. Modem organiza­ tions tend to organize development work in flexible and temporary constellations, where the participants are selected on the basis of their competence rather than formal position. To move projects from the real processes and into formal bodies is seen as inefficient. The formal bodies do not have a problem-solving capacity that fits the needs of the process . Both the trade union representatives and management seem to share a fairly high degree of agreement about this. Typi­ cally, the formal body with the greatest relevance is the so-called department council. which is generally composed of people with relevant problem solving skills and decision making capacity, made possible by their common basis in one specific department. Both the employers and the unions seem to be supporting a redefinition of the formal bodies so as to take account of this trend. What is very important is the fact that trade union representatives have been members of project steering committees or working groups in the projects in a high share of the enterprises (about 75%) . This kind of membership is probably a better guarantee for influence on the practical realities of the project than the formal bodies. Broad participation has a long tradition in Norway. but even with this in mind it is clear that ED 2000 has strengthened this dimension of development processes in the participating enterprises. Moreover, most enterprises experience this strengthening as positive. Compared to an evaluation of the agreement on development (Finne et al. 1 997) the ED 2000 participation in deliberations was lower. However. participation in design of projects is higher. and the usual gap between talking and implementing has been virtually closed in the ED 2000 projects. On the other hand, there is little doubt that much remains to be done in terms of organizing participation as a major part of the complex social landscape characterizing development and innovation in a contemporary context.

48

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

Most of the participating enterprises demonstrate a high degree of commitment to their ED 2000 project

There are several Indicators of the degree of commitment. Trade union representatives and management representatives (project man­ agers) both Invested considerable time In the projects. In most enterprises the project manager was also part of top management (In several cases the managing director) . Thus on average the project manager had a line position at level 1 .7 from the top. while the average number of organizational levels In the participating enterprises was 4.3. On average the partlclpatlng enterprises dedicated 3.2 person-years to the organization and running of their projects. In addition the enterprises In­ vested on the average 1 .5 million NOK ln direct project expenditures. A large percentage of the work force was Involved In deliberations, design Issues and decision making In the projects. This represents a considerable Investment In Itself. The enterprises have put a great deal of effort Into Informing the work force about the project and allowed for broad employee participation both In deliberations and problem solving. Most of the ED 2000 projects have or are expected to have a positive Impact on the competitiveness of the participating enterprises

There Is not one uniform measure of competitiveness. We have gathered Informa­ tion about several Indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, of competitive­ ness. The results ln Figure 3 Indicate that the ED 2000 projects have contributed to Improved competitiveness In a maJority of the cases: - 75% of the projects have already resulted In changes In business processes . The Interviews confirm that the changes have contributed to more efficient processes. Only 25% report that no change has taken place so far. This Is a very positive result, especially because 7 1 % expect the full effects to be realized ln the future. - About 50% of the enterprises were able to quantify the results In terms of higher earnings, reduced sickness . reduced wastage rates or similar. - Practically all responding enterprises claimed that the project had contributed to Increased competitiveness, 25% claimed a significant/considerable Im­ provement, whereas 72% reported some Improvement. - The Interviews Indicated that the projects had Improved the consciousness In the work force about the slgntflcance of Improving the competitiveness of the enterprise. From a management point of view the projects seem to have had an important · educational function' . Typical examples of the effects are smooth and consensus based personnel reductions. reduced number of days lost due to sickness , etc.

49

THE IMPACT OF ED 2000

Improvements during project period

Labor market party co-operation

Prod ucliVI ty Quality Jnnavallonlproduct development Marketing/ lntematlonallzaUon

0%

20 %

I • Grl!at

40 % •

Some

60 % D Nooo

80 9(,

1 00 9(,

I

Figure 3. Types of improvements during the project period

In spite of this very positive overall picture, the slgnlflcance of these results should not be overestimated. It ls Important to note that the ED 2000 projects ln most enterprises were only a fraction of their total Investments ln development and lnnovatlon (about 1 5%) . Thus. even lf we assume that the return on Invest­ ment of ED 2000 projects was slgnlflcantly higher than the average return, their Impact would stlll be modest compared to the effects of other Investments made by the enterprises ln the same period. On the other hand; lt was not the Intention of ED 2000 to create a course of development of Its own but rather to reinforce and perhaps also upgrade the quality of processes deemed necessary ln any case. There is, furthermore. an indirect Impact which is not easy to assess and which will often reach Its peak after a much longer period of time than could be considered ln this benchmarklng. The existence of the ED 2000 program made a significant difference to the priorities set by the enterprises

There ls evidence that the existence of ED 2000 was an opportunity that caused the enterprises to set other priorities than they otherwise would have done. To the extent that we believe that the enterprises know themselves best, this is an lndlcatlon of ED 2000 giving the participants added value: - 43% of the projects were free standing projects. The rest were part of more comprehensive development actlvlties. As free standing projects, most of them would probably not have come Into being at all unless ED 2000 had existed.

50

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS In the cases where ED 2000 projects were parts of more comprehensive development activities. they frequently delivered important conceptual ideas and methodologies that influenced broader streams of activities. The survey states that 82% of the projects would not have been implemented as they were without ED 2000, and 68% would not have been started at all. Half of the projects were organized differently than would otherwise have been the case as a result of ideas I requirements introduced to the enterprises through ED 2000. Thirty eight percent of the projects got a different content as a result of ideas brought to them by ED 2000.

The researchers · Input Is assese s d positively but quite differently by the enterprises

Generally the researchers seem to have been sensitive to the needs of the enter­ prises. There was no pronounced tendency of researchers to focus on their own research interest, regardless of the needs of the enterprise. The actlon and problem solving roles are more visible than the traditional observation and non-interven­ tion role of the · pure researcher' . The most widespread role. however, was as discussion partner. The survey results give an indication of this: - The researchers acted as discussion partners in 95% of the enterprises (in 68% this was the main role. in 27% a secondary role) . - The researchers acted as problem solvers in 68% of the enterprises (main role in 1 5 %, secondary role in 53 %) . - The more tradtttonal role of neutral observer is less visible. Only 2 1 % of the respondents experienced this to be the main role of the researchers. - Eighty two percent valued the net contribution as postttve, 33% were very positive. Also significant is that none of the enterprises considered the re­ searchers ' involvement to be negative. The interviews revealed that the researchers were for several reasons highly valued compared to traditional management consultants: - The researchers were considered to be less partial than consultants. Whereas consultants tend to have a very strong management bias, researchers were accepted by all parties in the enterprise. This is a signiOcant advantage, especially in projects where broad participation is considered crucial for success. - The researchers have a long-term perspective on their engagement, which is seldom the case for consultants. - The researchers have access to international networks of expertise that may be of interest to the enterprises. This is less frequently the case for consultants. - The researchers have a more open minded, dialogue oriented approach. They do not deliver preconftgured solutions. In this respect researchers tend to be better factlttators of learning within the enterprises than the consultants.

THE IMPACT OF ED 2000

51

Several enterprises emphasized that researchers and consultants could be comple­ mentary. as both groups could deliver different Important Inputs. On the negative side, the Interviews revealed that even If most of the researchers were evaluated posltlvely, several of the enterprises had also encoun­ tered researchers with a very academic approach, who seemed to be more Interested In their own research perspectives than In the needs of the enterprises. Clearly. the enterprises considered this kind of research a nuisance: a waste of time and a cost problem as it consumes resources they had provided, without glvlng anything In return. Thus. the enterprises desire very strongly to work with researchers who are able to work together with them on Issues of practical relevance to the enterprise. The Interviews Indicated that the relationship In most cases had evolved positively over time. I.e. that both enterprises and researchers had learned from each other and Improved the quality of communication. From the enterprises' point of view this had Increased the value of the research Input over time. In spite of the very positive overall picture of the Involvement of the researchers, given that the enterprises would have to pay themselves. only a minority expressed a wish to employ the same researchers In the future ( 1 7%) . On the other hand. given a financial support structure slmllar to ED 2000, as many as 55% were Interested In re-using the same researchers. The Interviews Indicate that this Is due to the fact that the enterprises are very Instrumental In their use of external resources. Thus the 45% that are not Interested In continuing to use the same researchers Is probably explained by three main factors. First, some researchers are too preoccupied with ' pure research' to have sufficient value for the enterprise. Second, for some Issues researchers with a different background are seen as more useful than the researchers Involved In the ED 2000 project. It Is. after all, quite natural for a development process to Imply a development also In what research support Is seen as most appropriate. Third. successful change In modern organizations seems to require a mixture of skills. To be of use In this kind of context the researchers should be able to take responsibility for complex deliveries, In terms of deliveries that can deal with complex Issues Involving different competences. from different organizations, departments and Institutions. on the research side, too. The researchers Involved In ED 2000. during the program period, were not fully experienced In this kind of delivery. They were strong on tasks such as facilitation and self-reflection but lacked the competence to deliver more structured ' packages ' . Furthermore, each research group tended to rely on Its own competence rather than to actively seek complementary competence In other groups. In spite of the point that each group had a far from homogenous Internal competence, the themes and Issues covered may In many cases still have been too narrow to fully flt the needs of the enterprise.

52

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

The attitudes of the enterprises should be evaluated critically. It Is not the sole aim of the researchers to provide support for the enterprises. The program also had major research alms. so it must be born In mind that it Is legitimate for the researchers to have other priorities than the Immediate, Instrumental ones defined by the enterprises. Strong horizontal networks. but weak vertical ones

As many as 34% of the enterprises stated that they had comprehensive contacts with other enterprises In the ED 2000 program. and 44% that they had some contact. Moreover, about 75% of the enterprises evaluated this contact as positive or very positive. Mostly. the network oriented efforts consisted In co-operation about management development and skllls development or similar for employees. These can be called horizontal networks. as there Is co-operation on themes of common Interest but no buyer-supplier or similar relationship. There were virtually no vertical ED 2000 networks, the only example of this kind of configuration being one of the networks within the Rogaland module (see Chapter 7) . Part of the explanation can be that, due to the structure of Norwegian industry, vertical networks as a rule include enterprises located either abroad or In a different region of Norway. whereas the regional focus of ED 2000 encouraged co-operation between enterprises located geographically close to each other. Thus. by restricting participation according to geographical criteria. the vertical dimension fell out of the possible scope of the program. A stronger focus on vertlcal networks In future programs will most likely require a rethinking of purely geographical criteria for putting the modules together. On the other hand: since the prime focus of ED 2000 was organizational dimensions, the Incorpora­ tion of vertical relationships with a material base demands, of course, that there Is an Interest In pursuing organizational Issues and not purely In, say. organizing the technological side of the materials flow. Figure 4 shows the extent to which the enterprises participate In networking activltles. The establishment of a so-called development organization Js dlfflcult to measure

This concept Is not unequivocally defined In the official ED 2000 program documents. and both the Interviews and the survey indicate that the enterprises do not attach strong meanings to it. However, If we Interpret ' development organiza­ tion' as the enterprise 's capability and readiness to organize future development activltles based on the core ideas of ED 2000 there are several indicators that it has been strengthened In several enterprises:

THE IMPACT OF ED 2 000

53

Themes Tra1ning.'rompeteoce

LNdenhlp ·� orsantzauoo TKhnology �lopmert

·------=== __: _:_ � ••••••••L

largl!r deiJ\wles

Local community dP\'Pklpmenl

_ _

PuttcipaUoo an advisory groups ��I

_ _ _

_ _

·-----�==== ·---�--�---�--� ·---�===

��hm�· �w�

M•�·� Product devPlopmert Ftlli0Cm8

•••===

0%

20 % • lnsldP

tO %

ED2000

• Oul.sldP

60 %

ED2000

80 %

1 00 %

U NoDI!

Figure 4. Co-operation III!'IMurks bem·eren enterprJSI!'S.

- A large number of enterprises in the survey claim to have developed new forms of participation and new ways of organizing development projects. - The interviews indicate that the enterprises have learned a lot about how to achieve broad participation, how to set up and use dialogue conferences and how to participate in networks with other enterprises. In the light of this lt seems reasonable to state that this objective of the program has been partially achieved. However, there Is still clearly a need for theoretical and practical clarification of the very concept of ·development organization' . There seems to be a shortage ofprofessional management of the ED 2()()() projects

This statement is primarily based on Information collected In the lntervlews. What we discovered was a lack of professional management of the projects. In only a small minority of the cases could the enterprises produce a formal descrip­ tion of the project organization (I.e. a chart with steering committee, work groups, etc.) , or a professional project management system (I.e. milestone plans, activity lists, etc.) . It seems to be fair to state that most of the projects did not have a strong

54

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

delivery focus. They were much more focused on creating arenas of self reflec­ tion for the enterprises than delivering a well defined result. If the aim is to create visible and measurable results, given general knowledge about the significance of project management, this deficiency has probably reduced the Impact and goal achievement of the ED 2000 projects. It seems that the researchers have been fairly good at creating support for the basic Ideas of ED 2000 and at helping the enterprises define fairly high-level goals for their projects, and to create and sustain processes of reflection within the enterprises about these goals. However, there seems to be a lack of attention to the need for the methodologies and skills required to define as clear project goals as possible. and to ensure allocatlon of sufficient project resources (manpower) and monitoring and management of the project · s progress towards those goals. We do not think this Is particularly bad In ED 2000 compared to other programs of this kind: rather that, In Norway. research related projects traditionally pay little attention to project management. We believe this reflects the traditional culture of researchers In this field. Tradltlonally. the culture of the research communities Involved In ED 2000 has In many respects been very Individualistic and Inward looking. Research careers tend to depend very much on the production of research reports. evaluated by their peers and published in acknowledged research journals. The highest value Is attached to work done alone. without any co-operation with other researchers. This motivational system runs completely counter to the needs and functioning of the enterprises and of modem lnnovatlon processes . Typically. enterprises today solve problems and organize complex deliveries by means of teamwork within project-type forms of organization. The success of the Individual Is not as Impor­ tant as the success of the team, and the good team member takes responsibility for the Joint result. not only his own performance. The fact that the research career does not seem to benefit from being part of a successful enterprise project. but very much so from being published In an International Journal. may to some extent make lt rational for the Individual researcher to downplay the interests of the project in favor of Individual research alms. Complex deliveries to enterprises cannot be well served within this framework: they require more teamwork within research and between researchers and the enterprises. We believe lt to be an essentlal part of the merging of a traditional research culture with modern forms of problem solving In organizations to train research­ ers In project management tools and methodologies (several enterprises could also benefit from this, since poor project management Is a problem In most enterprises too) . and that the design of future programs should define standards to which projects must adhere in order to gain funding. To some extent, research communities could build on their own skills In running more traditional research projects. In recent years the basic funding of research institutes has been reduced, and the Institutes have become more dependent on winning work In the market.

THE IMPACT OF ED 2000

55

As a result, their capabllltles for organizing projects have Improved. However. these projects are typically simpler. Involving fewer people. less conflict between the project and the llne organization. and with less Intra- and Inter-organizational Interdependence. compared to development projects In enterprises. Furthermore, there Is still a considerable cultural gap between the practices of researchers and the enterprise people. However, a strong focus on producing visible results and complex dellverles for the enterprises should not be Interpreted as a wish to turn researchers Into traditional consultants. It Is essential that those demands are combined with mechanisms and measures to ensure that there are time and resources to undertake reflection and production of new knowledge. Thus. we advise the combined strategy of Implementing measures Increasing the researchers ' value to the enter­ prises as well as creating conditions that strengthen research as an Important and legitimate aim In Itself. Consequently, we cannot In thJs context accept crltlclsm from enterprises resting on the ass umptlon that it Is wrong for researchers to be engaged In research, but we should, on the other hand. demand from the research­ ers that they are capable of understanding and working efficiently within the more pragmatic problem-solving context of the enterprises. Very high JnterPSt Jn partJcJpatlng Jn sJmJ/ar programs Jn the future

Interest In future participation In similar programs can be considered an Indicator of the usefulness of EO 2000 . If this was to be considered the sole Indicator. the program clearly must be considered a success . Only 7% do not want to take part In future similar efforts. whereas 86% are prepared to take part. given the same level of financial and research support as ED 2000 provided. The Interviews empha­ sized the following concerning future programs: - Important to keep and strengthen the network dimension. - Important to have a long term perspective (3- 1 0 years) . - Important to use researchers with a practical and pragmatlc approach. l.e. with knowledge relevant to the needs of the participating enterprises. - Important to strengthen the International and global perspective of develop­ ment efforts. especially for enterprises competing In the International market­ place. - Important to have access to the right kind of researchers. I.e. a need to use not only generallsts, but also specialists In different areas (e.g. Enterprise Re­ source Planning systems, Computer Aided Design systems, product develop­ ment. production technology. etc.) . This Indicates a design that gives more flexibility In terms of using researchers across Institutions. This does not necessarily mean that EO 2000 type projects need to Involve more researchers with a technical background. Rather. 1t could be argued that the more technical projects need an Input of the EO 2000 type. This makes sense since many

56

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

studies of the Implementation and development of new technology Indicate that such Implementations often fall due to lack of attention to such Issues as organization development, broad Involvement In design and Implementation, education and training, etc. Maybe the more technical projects financed by the research council could achieve better results If elements of the ED 2000 approach were adopted. - Important to focus more on problem-related research. l.e. Interdisciplinary approaches adapted to solving complex problems, as opposed to the more narrow minded discipline oriented research which tends to frame all Informa­ tion and all problems within Its own, rather limited conceptual universe. A direct comparison of results with the objectives from the mid-term assessment

Both In the original program memorandum and In an lntennedlate memorandum written at the end of 1 997. several objectives were set up relating to the participat­ Ing enterprises. Our overall conclusion Is that the program seems to have come fairly close to achieving most of these objectives, provided that we look only at the 4 7 enterprises Included In the lnvestlgatlon. However, those memoranda can be Interpreted as having ambitions for the whole of Norwegian industry. In this perspective it Is difficult to state that the ED 2000 program has brought about major changes for Industry as a whole. In terms of number of employees. the partJclpatlng enterprises represent about 1 5,000 employees (3 -4% of Norwegian Industry) , and there Is no evidence that the experiences have so far disseminated to any significant degree to other parts of Norwegian Industry. It Is the view of the benchmarklng group that the program should not be evaluated on the basis of Its Impact on the whole of Norwegian industry. Given both the financial backing and the discussions In the program board during the program as we know them, we believe it makes more sense to look at ED 2000 primarily as a pilot program, trying out new approaches. In this context we believe that the program should be evaluated as successful and the natural starting point for future Initiatives In this area. In the following we look more closely at the results within the areas where objectives are stated explicitly In the project memoranda. Objectives concerning project topics I overall results

It Is stated In the program memorandum that the program should lead to

accumulation of experiences that makes Norway more competitive in terms of roping with advanced marketing. product development and production strategies and the organization of value-chains.

THE IMPACT OF ED 2000

57

To the extent that we look at the enterprises involved, lt seems vindicated to say that this aim has been achieved, or partially so. Most of the enterprises have had projects related to one or more of those topics, and most enterprises claim to have improved competitiveness as a result of them. Objectives concerning broad participation

In the intennediate memorandum lt is stated that:

80% of the participating enterprises are expected to Implement new ways of employee participation. and 75% of those should be in operation after year 2000. The survey indicates that the first objective was achieved. The second cannot be evaluated at the time of writing. Objectives concerning 'development organization ·

In the intennediate memorandum lt is stated that:

80% of the participating enterprises are expected to establish or develop their development organization. In the others there should be a measurable. Increased understanding of what this concept means In practice. The interviews unanimously demonstrated that this concept was barely known and nowhere understood among the enterprises. Moreover, lt seems as if the concept ts not well defined in the program description either. Thus. within the conceptual universe of the enterprises, we find the focus on this concept unfortu­ nate and less than enlightening. We belleve that this concept needs a complete theoretical refonnulation and clarification before lt can play any significant role as part of the conceptual universe of the enterprises as they go along in this kind of project. Even if the concept is seen purely within the theoretical frame of refer­ ence of the research community we belleve that further clartflcation ts required. As already stated, the objectives concerning 'development organization' can at best be considered only partially achieved. Objectives concerning the network dimension

In the intennediate memorandum lt is stated that:

Every research module must have a direct engagement in at least five enterprises. This aim was achieved for all the modules. The interviews show that ED 2000 has significantly strengthened the relationship between the research institutes and the enterprises. This is especially the case where both the enterprises and the research institutes see themselves as belonging to the same region.

58

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS Furthermore lt Is stated that: 40

enterprises are expected to Increase their exchange of ideas and practical experience by taking part In network co-operation as part of the program. Addi­ tionally. 200 enterprises are expected to have some kind of contact with those co­ operation networks. We have not been able to measure thJs accurately. Based on our overall knowl­ edge about the program (interviews, conversations etc.) , we believe thJs aim has been achieved or Is very close to having been achieved.

30% of the projects are expected to be part of an International effort. The survey shows that 58% of the partlclpatlng enterprises are Involved In some kind of development project with lntematlonal partners, and 42% are Involved In benchmarktng activltles with lntematlonal partners. Unfortunately. we do not have very much Information about the researchers · role In those actlvlties. But from a formal point of view we think 1t Is justifiable to state that this objective has been achieved. Objectives related to health, environment and safety

It Is stated as an objective of the ED 2000 program that

A majority of the enterprises must have objectives related to health. environment and safety as an Integral part of their business strategy. This aim was achieved, as the survey confirmed that 88% of the enterprises affirm that those topics are Integrated In their business strategy. Objectives related to equal rights between genders

It Is stated as an objective In the ED 2000 program that

A majority of the enterprises must have objectives related to the achievement of equal rights between genders as part of their business strategy. This aim has been achieved In 48% of the enterprises, so even If the aim of the program has not been achieved. 1t came very close.

Some Points from the Perspedive of the Labor Market Parties Lars K. Hunn and PM Lynne Hansen Given the link to the Joint development actlvlties of the labor market parties, lt followed that the parties needed a well-founded picture of the program and had to develop this through several channel s. One of the steps taken In this context was a

THE IMPACT OF EO 2000

59

series of Interviews with management and union representatives within a selec­ tion of ED 2000 enterprises. Altogether 1 9 enterprises were visited. distributed throughout all modules. and conversations conducted with management and union representatives together. These conversations set out from much of the same themes as the questionnaire study but were conducted In a more open-ended way. The responses were to a large extent built Into the above report. There are. however, some points that need to be emphasized In their own right. When Introducing questions about labor - management co-operation In general. as well as ED 2000 In particular. the Interviewers experienced that the respondents held a very positive view on such co-operation, were well aware of what contributions had been given within this fleld by ED 2000 In their own enterprises, but had little knowledge about the program In general. The program to a great extent lacked, so to speak. an Identifiable user profile. How. then, had they opted to Join the program? At this point a rather Interesting paradox emerges: although the labor market parties had given a hand In some of the cases, the primary linking mechanism was the researchers: the point that participation In ED 2000 demanded a population of enterprises had sent the researchers out hunting and. it turned out, with rather good results. But how could this be achieved. In the light of. for Instance. the point that a maJority of the researchers lacked the kind of experience and competence needed to fully and professionally handle such relationships as Implied In the program? The answer to this question Is one of the most Important to emerge out of the ED 2000 experience since it throws light on how research knowledge can be brought Into play In enterprises. Most enterprises (when they were flrst approached) . were skeptlcal of the researchers. Many of the enterprises had previous experience with research, where they felt they had been treated as sources of data and had not been given much back for their own use. In the early phase of ED 2000 about half of the enterprises felt that thJs experience was about to be repeated: the researchers Initiated discussions that were felt to be theoretical and remote from the chal­ lenges facing the enterprise. In spite of what a number of enterprises experienced as a slow start, they also experienced a successive development from the side of the researchers towards an Improved ability to relate to the development challenges of the enterprise. The enterprise actors felt that the researchers had gone through a positive develop­ ment. making them continuously more able to understand the enterprise and communicate with the enterprise actors. Managers as well as union representa­ tives emphasize that the distance between the academic world and the practical one had been shrinking. They also accept that not only has the researchers learned from them, there has been a learning process the other way as well. Most of the enterprise representatives emphasize that this Improvement In the relationships with the research community Is useful beyond the co-operation

60

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

and contacts Inherent In ED 2000. Their knowledge of the research community has Improved, they know more about Its potential and about where to seek contact In future contexts. The enterprise actors are all very clear on the point that trust and long term relationship building Is necessary for fruitful research - enterprise co-operation and for the use of research as an actlve resource In enterprise development. This relates to all kinds of research. A general Impression Is that the enterprise actors draw a clear distinction between research and traditional consultancy. Furthermore. they make the point that it Is very useful for them to be able to combine these resources. The core element In the contribution from research Is that they are not seen as offering ' fixed solutions' but rather act as discussion partners and challenge the ways In which the enterprise actors fill their roles. These challenges can give rise to a dynamic which the enterprise representatives find very Important. This kind of dialogue has promoted criticism as well as frustration. but has often generated Important. sometimes decisive. new problems and perspectives. For anyone with some experience In research-enterprise co-operation these points are far from new. Rather, they tend to belong to the common stock of experiences generally encountered In most enterprise-oriented projects, whatever the content. Notwithstanding. there Is still a tendency to push such experiences Into the background, or at best to repeat them briefly. before turning to 'what the project was really about ' . which Is often some specific structural problem, In technology. organization, economics. or whatever. For the labor market parties, whose role Is not to solve specific problems but to see to it that their members have access to the resources needed for them to deal with their problems them­ selves. points like those Indicated above. however. become the core ones. Do N orweglan enterprises have sufficient contacts In general to research. to be able to fully utilize this kind of resource for whatever it may be worth? This Is the kJnd of challenge the labor market parties face. and the kind of challenge underlying ED 2000. Consequently. In ED 2000 this kJnd of challenge Is 'the figure ' : the specific content of the transaction between research and the enterprises becomes, In a sense, more of a background. Obviously. this content has to be found reasonable and sensible by both parties but 1t Is not the task of the labor market partles to guarantee the content on this level. Consequently. what emerged as the core experience from ED 2000 was the fact that, In spite of the dependency of the program on recruiting enterprises through the researchers. and In spite of the point that many of the researchers lacked adequate experience and competence from the start. the program had still been able to develop a good and strong enterprise population. Crucial In this context was the process : the kind of conversations and dynamics that had been triggered by bringing research and enterprises Into contact with each other. Not all contacts led to fruitful projects, but In most cases it was poslble to overcome the structural mismatch that often existed between research and enterprises In the beginning. even In cases where the researchers had relevant prior experience.

THE IMPACT OF ED 2000

61

The main conclusion drawn by the labor market parties is that ED 2000 has proved its worth as an initiative in the service of creating new and enriching old connections between enterprises and research, and made a significant step for the participating enterprises in their ability to utilize research as a future resource, and not only within the field of organization. At this stage the labor market partles face the challenge of how to proceed. Several options are possible. First, of course, one could say that even though ED 2000 could be posltlvely evaluated the experiences should be carried on by others: i.e. the enterprises, the research groups. other programs within, say. technology: the task of the labor market parties has come to an end. Second. to argue for an extension of ED 2000. so that the participating enterprises could develop their relationships with research even more deeply and more enterprises could be pulled in. Third. to develop a wholly new initiative. based on positively utilizing the experiences from ED 2000 but at the same time locating these experiences within a new context. such as a new thrust within the field of value creation and innovation pollcy in general. As will emerge below, the third alternative was chosen. in principle. Before turning to this. however. there is a need to touch. albeit briefly. on some of the points brought out by the benchmarkJng group.

The Report of the Benchmarking Group: Main Perspectives and Conclusions Bo Oscarsson in co-operation with Evely Polzhuber. Phlllp Cooke, Robert Amkil and Frieder N ashold General context

The main task of the benchmarking group was to see ED 2000 in the llght of processes and developments on the international scene. The idea was not so much a comparison with specific or similar programs in other countries as to use international developments in a broader. but also more vaguely shaped. sense, as something against whJch to position ED 2000. Obviously. it would not be possible to use ' all international developments ' in this context: in addition to bringing us rather far afield the initiatives and developments of possible signifi­ cance are so many and complex that there is hardly any group of llmited member­ ship who would be able to oversee them all. As it was. the group came to include members from Sweden, Finland, Gennany. the UK and France. The Swedish

62

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

member. Bo Oscarsson, acted as chairman and author of the final report. Much of the report overlaps with the previous chapters in this part; the program presenta­ tion by Hakon Finne. the survey report by Nils Arne Bakke. and the report from the labor market party representatives. The final part of the report is reproduced below, including the main conclusions: Covering such issues as co-operation and work and enterprise organizatlon. ED 2000 moves within a field of maJor significance within all contemporary approaches to economic growth. The more specific approaches differ widely, between nations, regions, networks and enterprises. but in some form or other such issues as how to organize for work and innovation today form recognised chal­ lenges in all approaches to growth. While co-operation and organization constitute necessary elements, they do not constitute the only ones. Material infrastructure, economic frame conditions. educational system, technologies and much more are significant too. As far as the organizational dimensions are concerned there Is, furthermore, an expansion of what topics are considered relevant, going beyond themes like participation and work roles to include innovation and networking: even regional economic perspectives are by way of becoming merged with such issues as work organization. The general effect of these trends is to make strategies for growth continuously more complex: much needs to be in place and there must be a fruitful interaction between all elements. The significance and success of each specific measure becomes increasingly dependent on context. A maJor conse­ quence of this is that the relevance and fruitfulness of ED 2000 depends as much on Us context as on its own specific characteristics. Is there an overall development context present in Norway within which ED 2000 fits? The benchmarking group can hardly answer such a question but it can point at some elements that need to be considered by future policy actors in Norway. While Norway has a strong tradition of labor - management co-operation and can still consider itself to be on the leading edge in tenns of workplace development under the umbrella of labor - management co-operation. the country has no similar position when it comes to themes like organizing for innovation and networking. Furthermore, Norway has no equivalents to the European structural funds and their impacts on regional processes and on devel­ opment in small firms. On the other hand, an upcoming training and competence reform in working life can help fill some of the contextual holes. The overall problem is that the terrain surrounding ED 2000 seems to be relatively meager in terms of parallel inittatlves to relate to. in particular actors and forces that generate networks and similar development coalitions. as well as strengthen the regional elements of growth policies. These actors and forces are of course not wholly absent. but it is an open question to what extent they are present to the degree needed to sustain a modern growth policy or. to the extent that they are present. they are sufficiently well coordinated.

THE IMPACT OF EO 2000

63

Main conclusions

There are three main purposes of ED 2000: 1 . To test the extent to which the traditional pattern of labor - management co­ operation characterizing Industrial relatlons In Norway has a potential for generating economic development and growth under present conditions. 2. To test the possi bilities for further developing and modernizing the pattern of co-operation as such, to Improve Its potential. 3. To test the ability of research to play a role of significance In this context. Within this framework ED 2000 points In a positive directlon as far as all three Issues are concerned. There are certain specific subordinate aJms that have been less explicitly dealt with than had been hoped for. In particular. two designated R&D areas seem to have lost out ln the actor-driven approach to the definition of development tasks. One Is the study of other elements ln the public support apparatus and their role In the Innovation system. This area Is covered by some researchers, but the overall focus has been too low and even the links to other programs within the funding partners ' own organizations could have been addressed more explicitly. The other area worth mentioning Is research on enterprise development with a gender perspective for the purpose of bringing women's experiences, priorities and sheer participation to bear more strongly on development processes. It seems fair to say that specific attention Is almost always required to women's perspec­ tives to come on a par with men's wherever the latter has dominated. ED 2000 Is, with Its manufacturing focus. no exception, and 1t was not until 1 998 that a small amount of funding was earmarked for a gender perspective. These two exceptions are Important because of the general resource mobili­ zation strategy adhered to In the program. but do not weaken the main conclusion that the program points In a positive direction on all three main Issues concerning the potential for creating economic development. The question Is how to best use the experiences ln a broader effort. Since ED 2000 - and other efforts of a similar scale - lack the mass to 'change working life' lt ls only through becoming useful within a broader context that the program can have an effect on working life In general. On the other hand, the potential for entering a broader context means that the outcomes of ED 2000 have to be assessed from this perspective rather than from the perspectlve of an isolated and self-sufficient program. One example: the program demonstrates that significant contributions have been made to the competitiveness of the enter­ prises. but 1t does not demonstrate that no other effort of the same magnitude could not have achieved similar or even better results. So far, several other options. such as expert-based. management-oriented ones, could have fared just as well. When ED 2000 may stlll be argued to score better. 1t Is because of Its links

64

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

to the labor market parties and the corresponding possibilities for extending its tentacles more broadly into working life; an expert program would hardly have had the same potential for triggering off something that can eventually reach ' critical mass · . Although the more specific research outcomes of the program are as yet largely unsettled, there is little doubt that new experiences and insights have been gained by all participating actors, relating to a number of topics, such as the innovation potential of the Norwegian pattern of labor - management co­ operation. the formation of networks and the effects of globalization. Recommendations

To utilize the experiences from ED 2000 there is a need for a broader strategy for the generation of economic values that can have a much broader span than this program. Such a strategy must have organizational dimensions of work and enterprises as its focus and set out from the role and legitimacy of the social partners in its approach. The more specific design of such a strategy involves issues going beyond those that can be envisioned by the benchmarking group. The recommendations that can be given by the group relate to some elements only. It is important that such a strategy includes not only labor - management relationships and work organization in a more traditional sense. but also such themes as organization and innovation and various forms of development coali­ tions between enterprises. Such a strategy must also interface with other elements in value generation processes. such as the development of material infrastructure and of technologies. Strategies for. respectively. organizational and technological development, on the other hand, cannot be collapsed into each other. While investment in technologi­ cal development often implies giving priority to certain technologies and conse­ quently to certain types of enterprises and branches. organization development should aim at all enterprises. This not only follows from the dependence of organizational strategies on the social partners whose membership Is found in all branches and sectors. but also from such reasons as the need to form new development coalitions on a regional basis. In many Norwegian regions there will not be sufficient mass unless enterprises of many different types and branches are included. Within a broader approach, research should be a partner with an important role to play. This role, however. should be defined as complementary to other actors and not as a replacement for other actors. Within ED 2000 the research groups have had to devote a great deal of effort to creating development interest in enterprises or to form networks. With other actors on the scene as well, many of

THE IMPACT OF ED 2000

65

these activities could be taken care of by others. with research concentrating more on core tasks having to do with the generation and use of knowledge. As far as the organization of research Is concerned, the module system developed within ED 2000 has strong aspects as well as weak ones. It seems as If the · nearness · to the enterprises made possible by this pattern Is an Important part of the reasons for the fairly successful relationships to the enterprises. On the negative side are found such elements as small research groups with corresponding problems of stability and Internal development. In making recommendations for the future lt seems. however. that the enterprise level success has to be given priority and the recommendation Is that the module system Is maintained and further developed. This further development has a quantitative aspect, In the sense that there are, In all likelihood. major areas In terms of regions (be they geographical or virtual ones) and businesses that are not well · covered ' In the present pattern. The benchmarklng group cannot advise on where further modules should be estab­ lished. only that. If the pattern Is to be maintained. 1t needs to be given a higher density. The qualitative aspects can be approached In various ways. 1 . Strengthening each of the modules by making them larger and, If necessary, more multi-disciplinary and multl-skHled and better able to cope with the demands of project management. 2. Improving co-operation between modules. making them better able to help and support each other. 3. Structuring the academic surroundings of the modules In such a way that they get better discussion partners and professional support within their own environments. Since the ability of the modules to handle their tasks depends on program and other central resources. a strengthening of central steering, support and management functions can also be considered. It Is worth noting that ED 2000 has had more limited central resources than, for Instance, the comparable Initiative In Finland (Alasonl and Kyllonen 1 998) and the LOM program In Sweden (Gustavsen 1 992: Naschold 1 993) . It Is beyond the capabilities of the benchmarklng group to be more specific In this field since 1t Is linked to a number of the characteristics of the Norwegian education and R&D systems. such as the views of the universities on develop­ ment activities. the role of the regional research foundations and similar. The recommendation Is. however. that In future efforts a more specific plan be set up for strengthening both module and program resources. The development of such a plan Is linked to the way In which field experi­ ence from development processes are converted Into research. This Is a topic of old standing and also of much disagreement. The point Is not to resolve all

66

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

conflicts - which can hardly be done - but to create a more well defined and recognised space within the research community for dealing with these issues. The research groups that are to co-operate · on line ' with enterprises in development processes need to have a long term perspective on this task. The challenges associated with this kind of role are so substantial that they need a long term development of competence and research strategies. They cannot be met through short term projects emerging as sidelines within research groups essen­ tially working from other perspectives. Given a modular pattern in the future, too, there is, on the other hand. a need to make this kind of module fit into the patterns of larger institutions with more varied activities. Although these institutional dependences do not seem to have created noticeable problems in ED 2000, lt still needs to be emphasized that future host institutions need to be aware of their responsibility for giving the right conditions and support to research groups with on-line development tasks to­ wards enterprises. For such long-term commitments to be possible there is a need for a platform in terms of research policy. institutional arrangements and funding with a time horizon of at least 1 0 years. There is a need to develop the co-operation with other European groups and initiatives. Given the high complexity and pluralism in strategies for economic growth lt is no longer possible to decide European relationships on the basis of simple surveys of ·what goes on elsewhere · . No surveys can provide learning grounds and real insights: the call is consequently not for surveys but for selective but intensified relationships of co-operation. These need to be given a very high priority in future efforts. While most of the strife and tensions found in the relationships between the researchers and the enterprises concerning such themes as forms of work and project planning are expected to dissolve over time - indeed they are doing so already - there is a need to look into these issues and maybe take some more specific steps such as working out frameworks for mutually acceptable project planning.

A New Initiative: Value Creation 2010 Well before ED 2000 reached its end, the labor market partles decided to promote a new initiative to take over after ED 2000 . However. such an initiative could not consist simply of identifying the characteristics of ED 2000, and then asking the Research Council, or other relevant institutions, to mobilize the money. First. although the main design of ED 2000 had demonstrated its fruitfulness, a number of points needed reconsideration. There was. for instance, a need to achieve more mass which would, in turn, not only call for a higher resource level

THE IMPACT OF EO 2000

67

but also for co-operation with other bodies and lnstltutlons Involved In lnnovatlon policy. Increasing the mass Is, furthermore, not only a question of 'adding ' . it puts new demands on the design and organization of the effort. Second, there were also limitatlons In ED 2000: major parts of Norway were not covered ; many of the core enterprises In 'the new economy' not at all : little attentlon had been paid to the more specific needs of women. Immigrants and others who do not correspond to the traditional model of ' the worker' ; project organization tended to be weak, the modular construction could Imply that each of the research groups was too small and unstable: much remained unsolved In the traditional conflicts between · hands on ' support for the enterprises and the fulflllment of research tasks. to mention but some examples of the points that had emerged In the above reports. To this could be added the International relationships, In particular with Europe: not being a member of the European Union, Norway Is not an automatic partner In European Innovation policies. while, on the other hand, it Is exposed to much of their effects. · Europe ' Is a recurrent theme In Norwegian politics, and how to co-operate with Europe was a rising theme at the time when ' life after ED 2000' was to be decided. The challenge of defining what to do after ED 2000 could be approached In two different ways: one was to list all problems, challenges and ' uncovered holes ' remaining after ED 2000 and work out answers to them. When all answers had been worked out they could be put together to form a new structure which could then be launched as ' the next program ' . No effort to do this was made and for sound reasons: the future challenges distribute across a wide range of themes and areas and they cannot all be handled In the same way. They demand. for Instance, discussions with different types of partners, and the way In which these discus­ sions have to run differ. There Is. for Instance, no way In which the research perspectives on hands-on development support can be worked out In a general formula which can be applied across the board. What Is needed on this point Is a continuation of the numerous dialogues within the research community that are already emerging In the wake of ED 2000. As far as other relationships are concerned. the pattern can be different: with, for Instance, the Fund for Industrial and Regional Development. 1t Is possible to reach agreements on co-operation on central level and proceed to the regions with such an agreement as the basis. What the labor market parties decided was to launch a new Initiative In the form, not of a program proposal , but a proposal for co-operatlon. The first step In the process was to work out a framework proposal. Indicating some ways In which the ED 2000 experience could be further used and developed, along with other experiences the parties had gained through their agreement on development. In this context the significance of employee participation for enterprise perfor­ mance was underlined, as well as the need to promote and further develop this participation. The labor market partles actually went one step further In arguing

68

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

that broad participation Is not only one of a number of elements In a national value creation policy, but a cornerstone In such a pollcy. If broad participation Is to be accorded this kind of recognition, value creation pollcy must be shaped In such a way that lt not only utlllzes. but actively promotes the further development of employee partlclpatlon. On this basis, the government was approached, Initially through a letter signed jointly by the president of the NHO and the chairman of the LO. In a meeting with the polltlcal leadership of the Ministry for Trade and Industry. the Ministry for Research and Educatlon. and the Ministry for Regional Development and Local Government, the overall idea was agreed on and a working group set up to give lt a more concrete shape. This shape was, however, to relate to Institutional Involvement. forms of co-operation, budgets and the llke, and not directly to how to grapple with the more specific challenges lmplled In the new lnltlative. The working group lent Its support to the general idea and proposed that the Research Councll should be given the task of bringing lt up to a level where a specific proposal for a place on the state budget for the year 200 1 would exJst. At the time of wrttlng. the Issue Is still In progress. and Is llkely to be so for some considerable time ahead. The proposal Is for an Initiative covering the period up to and including the year 20 1 0, that Is: a period of extraordinary length as publlc lnltlatlves go. This means. on the other hand. that the takeoff runway will be rather long: lt Is reasonable to expect a period of one to two years before the main elements of the new Initiative are In place. Here. a few main points only can be posited. It Is repeatedly mentloned that Value Creation 20 1 0 Is a process lnltlatlve: the main purpose Is to launch a series of discussions that can, In turn, produce consequences In terms of new patterns of co-operation and Institutional orders with the potential for strengthening the support to enterprise level Innovation processes. On the central level discussions are going on between the labor market partles Internally. between the parties and the government/various mlnJstrles, between the labor market parties and the Research Councll, as well as the Fund for Industrial and Regional Development and others. The core theme of these discussion Is how to organize development support on a local/regional level. Based on the modules of ED 2000 the core concept In this context Is development coalition. The main point Is to expand on those coalitions that are already present. to include more types of actors. more arenas and channels for co-operation. more enterprises, new types of enterprises and to create new combinations. Without losing the llnks to the past, the point Is to gain In strength and mass through bulldtng In more and more elements. whtle at the same time allowing for those organizational reconflguratlons which are necessary to Incorporate new actors. The notion of 'development coalltlon ' Is not given a

THE IMPACT OF EO 2000

69

standardized pattern. It Is fully recognised that it can vary: In terms of enterprises, leading actors and much more. There Is a world of a difference between organiz­ Ing, say. the fish processing Industry on the Arctic coast of Northern Norway on the one hand and the Information technology firms In the South on the other. Norway. llke much of Europe. Is moving towards a continuously stronger element of ·region' In economic policy. but the Norwegian regions will often be thinly populated, strongly dependent upon external support, and In need of many organizational measures to compensate for the small scale. These discussions are taking place against a background with a number of elements. not least the general drift towards reglonallzatlon of economic policy which characterizes much of Europe. The European Commission has divided Europe Into regions, and performance Indicators and growth measures are In­ creasingly being linked to these entitles rather than to the nation states or, for that matter, the Individual firms. Not being a member of the European Union. Norway Is no automatic partner In these processes. The benchmarklng group notes. for Instance. that there Is a certain lack of existing regional development coalitions to which such efforts as those Implied In EO 2000 can be linked. There Is, on the other hand, little doubt that Norway Is moving In the same direction and that the drawing together of regional actors In sustainable development coalitions will be a core topic In the years to come. As far as the public sector Is concerned, there are already several proposals under discussion, more or less radical ones. One public commission proposes to reduce the number of administrative regions, or districts, from the present 20 to somewhere between 1 0 and 1 5. The health authorities are talking about dlvldlng the country Into not more than five so-called health regions. As far as private enterprises are concerned, the Issue of fruitful regions cannot be settled In this way, though. Coalitions able to forcefully support Innovation and economic growth must emerge from · down below· and acquire their shapes and boundaries over time as patterns of co-operation and mutual dependencies are actually worked out. The problem here Is not to decide on boundaries but to launch a sufficient range of Initiatives and new processes. As we shall return to In the last Chapter, this Is where the classical problem of ·diffusion' stands with reference to the latest workplace development program In Norway. Being the context for the first major soclo-technlcal experiments with new forms of work organization, and conse­ quently the scene of the first efforts to diffuse experimentally generated patterns of organization. the point Is worth noting. The whole notion of ·diffusion · , or · dissemination' has undergone several transformations and Is, today Inseparably linked to what patterns of connected­ ness exist In that part of society where diffusion Is to take place. If the connections are to be constructed on the basis of the Idea of broad partlclpatlon, it means that each new actor who Joins a coalition must be allowed some scope for Influencing

70

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

the coalttlon. 'The coalttlon · as such cannot be a fixed machinery but must ln Itself be a living phenomenon. continuously under development and change. This means. In turn, that those who are, on behalf of society, to promote and support the coalttlons have to be undergoing continuous change and development as well. No fixed set of actors can, with the help of one single master plan, successfully promote Innovation In modern society. In this way. what once upon a time started out as experiments with partlctpative forms of work organJzatlon has ended up facing the challenge of how to be Innovative In the promotion of development coalttlons. It wtll take time for the Value Creatlon 20 1 0 process to fully uttltze all experiences from EO 2000 and by the time this has become possible there wtll, ln all likelihood. be much new experience to consider. This notwithstanding. it Is worthwhtle going more closely Into what was learned from E O 2000: what, so to speak. are the ' Incoming' assets and In particular those that need to be considered at an early phase In the next activity cycle. To these we shall turn In the following parts of the book, the first (Part In focusing on the history behind the program ln terms of co-operation between the labor market parties Internally and with research, Part Ill on the modules. and Part IV on conclusions to be drawn from the program.

PART 11

Historical Roots and Points of Departure

Chapter 4

Workplace Development and the Road to Social Partnership Bj�rn Gustavsen

Introduction Enterprise Development 2000 was linked directly to an agreement on workplace and enterprise development between the Confederation of Business and Industry and the Confederation of Trade Unions. In this sense it represented a formallzed co-operation and not only a co-operation mediated purely by such means as the social partners being members of the program board. EO 2000 could become a part of the processes unfolding under this agreement and In this sense enter a historically given context. Below, a brief presentation Is given of this context. This presentation Indicates. at the same time, one route that can be taken In moving from labor market organization to social partner.

Conflict and Co-operation in Working Life In the early stages of the process of Industrialization Norway. like many other countries, was ridden with Intense conflict (Gustavsen and Hunnlus 1 98 1 ) . In fact, where 1t has been common for observers, Including external ones, to point during the post World War 11 period at the essential peacefulness of labor relations In Norway (and for that matter also In Sweden) 1t Is relevant to recall that this peacefulness Is a product of specific steps taken by the parties. political authorities and others. to create an lnstltutlonal setting where order and peace could dominate (Gustavsen and Hunnlus 1 98 1 : johansson 1 989) . In the case of Norway the major step In this context was the Basle Agreement between the Employers' Confedera­ tion (now the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry) and the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions In 1 935. In this agreement the parties mutually recognized each other as politically and legally legitimate actors and laid

74

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

down a series of rules and principles governing how the relationships should be structured. Agreements acquired the status of being legally binding and conflicts were constrained to situations where agreements expired or were broken. Although most of the rules and regulations related to the handling of con­ flicts, the need for both parties to live according to a Joint system of rules demanded some degree of co-operation. The further development of co-operation was broken by World War 11. When a new government was formed. and reconstruction started In the Autumn of 1 94 5 , the union - employer co-operation formed a cornerstone. One of the steps proposed by the government was the Introduction of works councils In the form of bodies for local co-operation based on parity. The Idea came from wartime Britain, where lt had been applied In certain Industries. After some pressure from the government the labor market parties accepted the Incorporation of this pro­ posal In the agreement system. giving the Basle Agreement a section on formal co-operation. It Is worth noting that the first national 'value creation strategy' to see the light of day In modern Norway utilized co-operation to achieve Increases In local productivity and was Initiated In an Interplay between the government and the labor market parties and applied organizational measures. The works councils - or production committees, as they were called In Norway - probably had a mixed direct Impact. Their most significant contribu­ tion can probably be found In the networks of relationships that successively emerged In the workplaces. as a consequence of the Implementation of this agreement. Workers and management had to meet at the same table and had to start relating to each other In a new context. demanding new ways. In addition to promoting productivity through pooling lnslghts and experiences. lt also became possible to Identify sources of conflict at an early stage and often to prevent them from maturing Into open conflict. There Is little doubt that this was much of the reason for the low rate of conflict In Norwegian (and Swedish) working life In the first decades after World War 11 (Gustavsen and Hunnlus 1 98 1 ) . Subsequently. this system evolved Into several processes and branches: the works councils. for Instance. were replaced by the still existing system of enter­ prise level councils and department councils: a number of bodies have emerged to handle Issues of Joint Interest; the co-operation part of the Basle Agreement has been further developed and supplemented with a series of additions: and so on.

The Agreement on Development The agreement on enterprise development was entered Into In 1 982, as part of a broader revision of the Basle Agreement and as an addition to lt (Gustavsen 1 985) . It was not the first addition: In the 1 970s an addition was made concerning new technology and the right to elect technology stewards - an Innovation that

WORKPLAC E DEVELOPMENT

75

attracted much attention (internationally. too) at the time. but which actually came to have a limited impact in the long run. ' New technology' turned out to be a difficult topic within the context of negotiations and other forms of traditional modes of work between management and the local unions. Rather than being 'structures to decide about ' , technology turned out to be processes that had to be made subject to Joint steering in project form. if employee influence was to be achieved. This was one of the experiences that provided a background for the agreement on development. There were others. such as those from field experi­ ments with alternative forms of work organization, and the ensuing discussions (next chapter) . In the agreement the social partners centrally expressed encouragement for, and support of, bipartite local initiatives to develop new forms of co-operation and work organization and also offered certain more specific forms of support. It was emphasized, furthermore. that local efforts should actively include those concerned. even at the preparatory stage. To ensure that this principle of partici­ pation was actually lived up to, all applications for advice and support under the agreement had to be signed by both parties at the local level. Advice as well as economic support could be given to three types of measures: Projects Conferences Fellowships/project coordinators. The concept of · project' was taken in its ordinary meaning. as a type of activity characterized by learning by doing. where the purpose is to work out new solutions to problems. It is significant in this context that 'project ' did not mean any speciflc kind of project based on any specific set of ideas. In principle. the point expressed in the agreement is that projects are a good thing. but it is left to the local parties to decide on content. The conferences were called ' mapping conferences' or ' planning confer­ ences ' , and were intended to provide arenas where management and employees could meet to discuss the future of the enterprise, problems to remedy, and how to do it. It was emphasized that these conferences should, as far as possible. have participants from all major levels and interest groups in the organization (if it employed fewer than 40-50 people, the whole organization) . and that talks and authoritative declarations, whether from management or anyone else, should be avoided as far as possi ble. It was viewed as being of major importance that all participants felt free to express their views without feeling that they were given an obligatory framework. There was - and is - a need for an agenda for such discussions: this was supposed to be set Jointly by management and worker representatives. The pattern to eventually emerge as more or less standard for these conferences is to perform most of the discuss ions in groups and center on a sequence of themes, where the first step is to create a vision for the future, the next

76

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

to identify challenges and problems that need to be dealt with, the third to generate ideas and proposals, and the last to identify further steps in the develop­ ment process: descriptions and discussions of these conferences can be found in Gustavsen ( 1 992 : 2000) . Shatter and Gustavsen ( 1 999) , Ennals and Gustavsen ( 1 998) . Engelstad ( 1 996) . see also Chapter 1 4. What motives promoted this particular pattern? While various forms of conferences historically emerging in an organization development context (such as confrontation conferences. search conferences, ideas generating conferences, consensus conferences, and so on) played some role, it was as a vaguely shaped background rather than as more sharply featured procedures to be implemented. More important for the conference pattern to actually emerge in the agreement was the history of the social partners themselves, and the way in which they had traditionally managed their relationships to each other. Originally centering on negotiations in situations that were set up as adversartal. through the co-operation part of the Baste Agreement, new ways of relating had been developed to cover a broader range of discussions. The production committees. for instance, were mainly intended to map ideas. explore problems, get the views of all concerned, rather than to negotiate about, say. the wage consequences of specific workplace changes (Dorfman 1 95 7) . This also characterizes their successors. which exist today, such as co-operation councils and department councils (co-operation councils function in relation to the enterprise as a whole. while department councils cover specific parts. such as departments. plants, or similar units) . Such consequences were to be channelled through the ordinary negotiation apparatus, and not the co-operation bodies. The conferences proposed in the agreement on development can be viewed as further steps away from the traditional patterns of negotiations and a further development of alternative forms of discussions. Expressed in a simple way, traditional negotiations can be seen as being conducted in an adversartal way over unequivocally defined objects through representatives. The conferences introduced in the agreement on development can be seen as a negation of these principles. They are to be conducted: in a co-operative way over diffuse and many-sided objects or issues through those directly concerned. Compared to the existing co-operation apparatus, the main difference is the move from representatives to including - as far as possible - all who are directly concerned. Within the framework of the agreement this is called the principle of broad participation: a principle that has gradually become the maJn principle of the agreement. This conceptuallzation also indicates a modest but nonetheless quite

WORKPLAC E DEVELOPMENT

77

significant shift In the way In which the principle of participation Is applied. While ' those concerned' were, In the early phase. the ones whose participation should be ensured, the main perspective was In a sense reactive: any effort In a workplace concerns somebody and these should be Included. The move towards placing broad partlclpatlon ' up front ' has a more pro-active orientation: it Indicates that development efforts should be conceived and organized In such a way that all employees are actively given a possibility for participating. If at all possible, development efforts should be designed In such a way that they could. In them­ selves, function as engines In a process leading to more and better participation. The third measure was called fellowships. If the parties could agree. locally. or within networks or groups of enterprises, on specific persons to perform linking and other functions dealing with development. the agreement would cover half the salary. It was also a principle that these fellows should be elected equally between managers and employees. In a sense this could be seen as a follow-up to the steward system In labor - management relations. The steward, however. Is generally a spokesperson with his or her main role linked to negotiations and similar activities where elements of adversartal relationships are strong. Develop­ ment fellowships were Intended to transcend this, partly through being linked to new types of tasks, partly by being entirely removed from the negotiation system. Again, it Is seen that ' the logic ' of the agreement on development Is built on taking traditional types of relationships and modes of work and negating them. These negations are not based on the assumption that the workplace Is now free of conflicts. or even that development processes are free of conflicts. Rather, they must be seen as elements In a process of successive differentiation of the relationships between the social partners. New roles and new relationships do not replace the old ones but come In addition. Insofar as conflicts may emerge. they will usually be passed on to the part of the apparatus designed to deal just with conflicts. In a later revision of the agreement on development. 'fellowship' was exchanged for ' project coordinator' . The tasks are defined locally and can vary. As a point of departure, however. the project coordinators are meant to perform linking and supportive tasks, not to be responsible for the development process . It Is commonly recognized that If one single person Is given this responsibility. everyone else resigns from it, with the consequence that the process will come to a halt. In spite of broader collectives, Including line managers and union represen­ tatives. having to take the main responsibilities it Is seen. however. that having persons who can dedicate much of their time to supporting the processes can be a great help. They also generally take care of external relationships such as those with the bodies of the agreement, sometimes with other enterprises. and so on. In the agreement no preference Is given to any specific school of thought on structures: the social partners do not take a stand on such themes as autonomous groups or other forms of teamwork. on flat organization. learning organization,

78

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

partJclpative management or anything else. What is done is to introduce a process where the local parties can identlfy challenges, problems. and options, to reach whatever conclusions they can work out and agree on. The agreement expllcttly emphasizes process and discourse as activities in need of concern in their own right. The figures in the foreground are two: the enterprise itself. and the dis­ course: other enterprises, more or less standardized patterns or solutions. and everything else. constitute the background. This background can be seen as a ' resource pool ' from which ideas. proposals and much more can be picked but the driving force is the discourse on how to develop one 's own workplace and enterprise. The actor conflguratlon associated with this agreement was. in the begin­ ning. simple. A central board was establlshed to oversee the implementatlon of the agreement. and make all necessary decisions in this context. This board was llnked to a small secretariat. The main 'customers ' were individual enterprises that submitted appllcatlons for support. These appllcatlons were then discussed and decided on by the board . The money avallable to support the agreement was little and the support that could be given to each appllcant consequently llmlted. Even in this early phase, however. the agreement did not completely function as a machinery for deallng with appllcations. The existence of the secretariat meant that some tleldwork was possible and many of the users of the agreement were actually also visited. In this way the relationships between the agreement bodies and the users acquired an element of personal contact and of more complex forms of interactlon than Is possible in a system where the actors deal with each other purely from a distance. In brief, the original contlguratlon could be seen as consisting of the social partners on central - or natlonal - level. llnked to each other through the Joint board and. through this. to a number of enterprises. The enterprise llnks were largely maintained by the secretariat.

The First Major Evaluation and the Restructuring of the Agreement When the agreement was revised in 1 99 1 , all that had happened in the period from 1 983 up to and including 1 990 was mapped out. During this period the board had made altogether 866 decisions about support (Gustavsen 1 993; Ennals and Gustavsen 1 998) . Of these. 4 78 were about conferences. 22 1 about projects and 1 67 about fellowships. This does not mean that the three means. or parameters, were applled in exactly these numbers of times: sometimes one and the same case could come up before the board several times. In assessing their relative signifi­ cance other factors need to be considered too, such as differences in scope and duration times between, respectively. conferences, projects and fellowships. With these reservations. these figures give rough approximations concerning the appll-

WORKPLAC E DEVELOPMENT

79

cation of the means and the relationships between them. Conferences dominate. numerically speaking. Looking at the relative fre­ quencies over time (Gustavsen 1 993: 1 4 7: Ennals and Gustavsen 1 998: 23-24) lt can be seen, however. that from 1989 onwards, conferences started to fall off. From this point the growth was In fellowships, which were the dominant measure by the end of the period. The relative share of projects was fairly constant. but with a modest growth towards the end. Without going too far In Interpretation. the following points seem reasonably well substantiated (Gustavsen 1 993: Ennals and Gustavsen 1 998) : when the agreement went Into force, there seemed to be a pent-up need for discussions on workplace and enterprise level. The underlying reasons can be several, such as that during the 1 970s there had been major. society level discourses on work and Its significance and, together with this, numerous views offered on ' the good work role ' . Given all this exposure there may have been a perceived need In the workplaces for discussions and clarifications, In particular with reference to one 's own workplace. When fellowships started to grow towards the end it may be taken to Indicate a successive turn towards action: towards triggering off processes that could, In turn, need support. As Indicated In Ennals and Gustavsen ( 1 998: 23-25) lt would be wrong to assume that a possible growth In activities towards the end of the period emerged as a direct result of the conferences. The growth In activities was as much - or more - a result of external pressures as of Internal ones. Towards the end of the 1 980s the pressures from global competition were Increasing, while Norway at the same time also experienced an economic setback due to the fall in oil prices In 1 986. When the pressure mounted, however. and the enterprises started to search for ways In which to meet it, they often turned back to such events as a conference that could have been held several years earlier but had provided elements that could be recalled. What was recalled was not so much the specific suggestions to come out of a conference - these would generally be outdated anyway - as the modes of work represented by the conferences. They had Implied new discussion patterns and new relationships that could be re-activated to serve new processes of development. Some enterprises moved fairly directly from a conference or similar trigger­ Ing mechanism and Into a development that could create speclflable results over a period of, say, two to three years. The board of the agreement could Identify 2030 examples. Given that several hundred enterprises had made use of the agree­ ment. this Impact level was not high. It was, however. consistent with the point that the agreement did not aim at creating development from a zero point: rather, what lt aimed at was to pick up whatever elements of development or develop­ ment Interest could exist In each workplace and help turn 1t Into a more substantial process. In this context, however. the agreement had very limited means available

80

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

- throughout most of the decade about 5 million NOK per year - and, as has emerged above. the means were spread rather thinly over a broad terrain. The fact that quite a substantial number of enterprises had wanted to use the agreement measures. in spite of the very limited support that could be offered, was, in the 1 99 1 revision, interpreted as reflecting an interest in development. This interest was verified in a number of other ways in other transactions between the social partners and their membership. Given the fact that few substantial projects emerged in the short and even medium run led to the conclusion that the interest in development was in an embryonic phase rather than a full-blown one. The need to place 'development' on the agenda was beginning to be recognised across a broad front while what to do was much less clear. In the revision of the agreement several new elements were introduced. First. it was emphasized that the notion of broad participation had to be linked clearly and explicitly to the primary task of the enterprises: the generation of economic value. The argument that · democracy should not be brought to serve economy' was of course well known to the social partners. not least to the Trade Unions. Against this, however one had to consider · the sidecar effect ' of decou­ pling broad participation from the value generation process. Since an enterprise is primarily a machinery for the generation of economic value, what else should participation be about? Second, it was decided to take specific steps to bring in the branch-based employer associations and the corresponding national unions and assign them more active roles. Often they had been standing outside the previous pattern of the partners centrally relating to single enterprises. The intermediate organiza­ tions where encouraged to develop branch based development programs. It was opened up for networks cutting across branch boundaries to become users of the agreement, no mean step to take for the labor market parties who are, after all, in principle organized along branch and industry lines. The amount of money put into the agreement was increased. Finally. it was decided to seek co-operation with actors that could help strengthen and enrich the service to the enterprises. Several types of actors could be of relevance in this context. but research was specitlcally mentioned. In this way, new groups of actors entered the configuration: the branch based employer associations. the national unions. network operators and research. At this stage. however. these were potentlals. not actualities. It remained to actually pull in the intermediate organizations and it remained to tlnd a platform that could bring research into the process. In spite of this, there is little doubt that some borders were crossed in this revision and some doors opened that could eventu­ ally bring the social partners to head a larger coalition for development in working life. One characteristic of the development after 1 990 Is the emergence of several different types of development coalitions. While. In the early period the users

WORKPLAC E DEVELOPMENT

81

were, with few exceptions, single enterprises. there now emerged branch pro­ grams, regional programs and programs for groups/concerns, that is: larger enterprises with organizationally and/or geographically distributed activities. A branch program covers a branch, or an industry, and is initiated and supervised by the employers· association concerned and the corresponding na­ tional union. In contrast to a craft -based type of labor relations system, the Norwegian one is industry-based with the consequence that there are few associa­ tions within each sector, or industry. The typical pattern is that the enterprise is member of a national employer association which is. in turn. member of the Confederation of Business and Industry while ' the ordinary employees ' are members of a national union belonging to the Confederation of Trade Unions. There are other employer associations. as well as other unions and union federa­ tions, but within traditional industry these other organizations play limited roles, with some exceptions for white collar workers and employees with a higher education. There are, however. well-established tradUions for co-operating with these groups. Branch/industry programs emerged in the engineering/technology industry, process industry. textiles and clothing. fish processing. meat processing, electri­ cal contracting. newspapers and furniture industries. During the early part of the 1 990s these efforts dominated the picture: regional efforts cutting across industries started to appear only slowly: there were also few efforts covering industrial groups.

Current Projects By the end of 1 999 the official portfolio of projects and programs covering more than one enterprise (excepting ED 2000) was as follows: Ten enterprises in news/media work together on a competence development effort. In the meat processing industry the third branch program is on its way. covering 1 5 enterprises with the intention of dealing with a broad range of issues like quality, logistics, etc. Competence-based development is a branch program in the process industry, covering seven enterprises with a main emphasis on the relationships between business strategy and development of competence and qualifications. Another effort covering seven enterprises is going on in the textilelclothing industry. with a maJn focus on workplace changes as a lever in the development of competence. Sixteen enterprises are participating in a program in the food processing industry: in this program project work and networking across enterprise bound­ aries are main themes.

82

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

There are 20 enterprises organized In three networks participating In a branch-based program In the furniture Industry: maJn focus on competence development. In the bulldlng Industry 1 5 enterprises are participating In the early phase of an effort to bulld a broader program departing from the need to Improve on the recruitment to this Industry. Thirty enterprises are participating In an effort within the engineering Indus­ try to develop better training packages for operators In steering and management of production. Within the same Industry three enterprises are working together on a project related to the modular construction of ships. Among the partners In electrical contracting a branch program related to labor - management co-operation has been launched. covering 1 5 enterprises. In addition there are still a number of projects pertaining to Individual enterprises. some of them can perhaps be said to correspond to the Idea of · concern ' or · group ' strategy for development. There are, furthermore. a number of network constellations emerging. A number of the branch programs do not cover all the enterprises within the Industry but rather sub-groups where the enterprises have selected each other as a coalition partner. In this sense. ' branch programs' less and less pertain to loose · aggregates ' and more and more to organized networks. Lifelong learning In the Kongsberg engineering industry Is a regional co-operation between flve enter­ prises of this kind. Development of competence in Northern Trondelag Is a regional program. covering a substantlal but not yet fully speclfled number of enterprises. most of them SMEs from different Industries. Several of the participating enterprises and enterprise constellations belong to networks with other members, creating overlapping network structures. To some extent regional networks cutting across industries and consequently also across employer associations and unions are being formed and linked to the HF-B apparatus. The most prominent example so far Is Nordvest Forum (a module of Its own within EO 2000)

Some Unes of Evolution Adding the more recent history to the earlier one, some long term developmental llnes can be seen. In terms of phases. In the flrst period the agreement on development largely appeared as an Initiative organized and run by the labor market parties centrally and with Individual enterprises as users. There were some modest exceptions in the form of

WORKPLAC E DEVELOPM ENT

83

networks even in the 1 980s, the most notable one between a group of car dealers but this was generally no important feature of the agreement. In the second period, national employer associations and national unions moved into more prominent positions. a process expressed in the emergence of a number of Industry programs. Initially, these efforts aimed at aggregates rather than networks. In the development to follow, a shift can be seen from aggregates to networks based on the development of selective mutual dependences: the enterprises start relating to specific partners with whom they can have more profound relation­ ship. Focus changes from branches to networks. many of the networks remaining within Industries, but some starting to cut across such boundaries to become more firmly anchored in regions. Although with many twists and turns, there Is little doubt that this reflects an underlying process towards continuously more clearly defined development coa­ litions. where enterprises do not only look at their environments as 'broad trends ' and 'large aggregates ' but also as potential partners In specific relationships of co-operation. In 1 994-5. this process was Joined by ED 2000, not to make a break but to reinforce exlstlng tendencies.

Chapter 5

Research and the Challenges of Working Life Bjom Gustavsen

Introduction As has been noted before, when ED 2000 emerged In the mld- 1 990s 1t stood on the shoulders of a 30 year history of co-operation between research and labor market actors devoted to the task of creating a better working life. The purpose of this chapter Is to trace some of the lines of development that came to influence the design of ED 2000. The presentation is brief: for more thorough presentations and discussions see Gustavsen and Hunnlus (1 98 1 ) , Gustavsen ( 1 992: 1 996) , Gustavsen et al. 1 997, and Ennals and Gustavsen ( 1 998) .

Taylorism and the Idea of a 'Social Science' Norway. like all other industrialized countries in the period after World War 11, embarked on a process of ' Taylortzatlon ' . in the sense that patterns of work organization and first line management became strongly characterized by the work simplification inherent in thJs school of thought. But with Taylorism came the crttlque of Taylorism: that 1t carri ed with lt great human costs, created a democratJc deficit in society. prevented employees from developing competence and creatlve abilltles, and did not even always ensure productlvity in simple, repetltlve work operations. Much social science work research in thls period actually became part of a moblllzatlon against Taylorism. And the tlme was favorable for just such a science-based attack. The huge advances in science­ based technologies during the war years underpinned a bellef in the abillty of science to deal with almost any problem. What, however, was ' the scientific way' of dealing with such a phenomenon as Taylortsm? Under the influence of the Cartesian idea that there is a kind of reason superior to all other reason, which can be discovered by the mind and expressed in

86

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

general theory, the struggle against Taylortsm took the form of a search for such a theory. This was strengthened by Taylortsm itself, whJch declared itself to be nothing less than such universally applicable reason and, it could be argued. those who claimed to represent universal reason could only be silenced by another, superior universal reason. In spite of the search for one single. new reason, the emerging research activities actually came to be characterized by many differences. Rather than one school of thought, a number emerged: the 'human relations' school. emerging out of the Hawthome proJect in the 1 920s and ' 30s (Roethlisberger and Dtckson 1 939) . was further developed In the 1 940s and ' 50s into Ideas about group and organization development. Around 1 950, the soclo-technlcal school entered the scene, to form a somewhat different platform based on a main focus on the patterns of interaction between people and material working condttlons (frlst and Bamforth 1 95 1 ) . In the late 1 950s the motlvatlon theory of Herzberg and col­ leagues (Herzberg et al. 1 959) added a new, grand portfolio of ideas. What came to be called the labor process school emerged formally In the early ' 70s with Braverman 's study of modern forms of exploitatlon (Braverman 1 974) . but various branches of (more or less) critical theory had flourished for a long time and actually reached a peak In 1 968. In addition to these ' maJor schools ' there were a number of schools competing on more specialized terrain. such as views concerning processes and agents of change: should a new working life be promul­ gated by owners, managers, workers, experts or other actors such as the state? Could adequate changes be created In an evolutionary and Incremental fashion. or was there a need for more revolutionary approaches? Were changes in working life reflections of changes In. say, class relatlonshtps and/or the baste organtzatlon of society, or could working life be changed ' In its own right'? In addition to theories dealing differently with the core issue of working life - the work role, Its constltutive forces and its effects on people - numerous theories of more indirect relevance entered the scene, such as the coalition model of the enterprise (Rhenman 1 964) , the limited rationality perspective on organiza­ tional decision making (Simon 1 94 7) . the contlngency theory of organizational optlmtzJng (Woodward 1965) and so on. A number of other differences of relevance emerged as well. such as those between a productivity orientation and an orientation towards human concerns, between understanding the stable versus understanding the changing. between socto-psychologlcal forms of understand­ Ing versus medical-physiological ones. and many more. In fact, most of the different schools of thought were as preoccupied with criticizing each other as with crttlclzJng Taylortsm.

RESEARCH AND THE C HALLENGES OF WORK ING LIFE

87

Experiments as Research Strategy and New Forms of Work Organization This was the context within which a series of experiments with new forms of work organization emerged In the 1 960s, Initially In Norway but gradually ln a number of other countries too (Emery and Thorsrud 1 969. 1 976; Gustavsen and Hunnius 1 98 1 ; Gustavsen 1 996) . The main theoretical source behind these spe­ cific efforts to change working life was the soclo-technlcal school as ll had emerged In particular at the Tavlstock Institute In the UK (frlst and Bamforth 1 952; Emery 1 957; Trlst 1 98 2) . In Norway. as In most other countries where such efforts emerged. they Implied some form or other of co-operation between research and the labor market parties. The labor market parties had to place sufficient trust In research to be willing to enter Into this kind of co-operation. The labor market parties ln Norway were first out In this context, and actually created a high-level work group to supervise the experiments (Emery and Thorsrud 1 969) . In contrast to most other efforts to create and scientifically underpin a new universal reason In working life. this school went beyond critical discussions of existlng social orders to actually perform experiments with new ones. Under the Influence of Kurt Lewln and the Idea of the field experiment (Lewln 1 946; Lewln et al. 1 939) . projects were created In real workplace settings. These projects were Intended to perform experlmental tesllngs of the theoretlcal platform as well as a further development of this platform (Gustavsen 1 996; 2000) . In this respect they had the same alms as. say. descriptive-analytic research. But the field experiments had another side to them. Being events In 'real life ' . they were also a way of demonstrating the new rationality ' In real terms · and, through this. performing a task of persuasion as well as a task of forming diffusion nodes. A diffusion node Is ' a place In the world ' where a specific pattern - I.e. an autonomous work group - can be seen ' In practice' . Those who want to learn what an autonomous group ' Is ' do not have to rely on theory and/or · distant descriptions· but can actually go and look at and talk to the actors Involved.

From Experiments to Diffusion Although there Is little doubt that the experiments - In a wire drawing mill. a mechanical assembly plant. a pulp department and a fertilizer plant (Emery and Thorsrud 1 976) - were major advances and made contrlbutlons to ' the discourse on work' , nationally as well as Internationally. far beyond what ' pure texts ' could have achieved at the tlme, they also ran up against difficulties: central In this context was the diffusion problem - the problem of getting new workplaces to use, or copy. what had emerged In the experimental sites. In spite of the major Interest In the themes Involved In the experiments, and the rather Intense discourses to

88

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

which they gave rise, there seemed to be some major barriers In moving from experiments to new practices In wider circles of workplaces (Bolweg 1 976: Gustavsen and Hunnlus 1 98 1 ) . One process to emerge out of this was a successive dismantling of the experimental design criteria, Inherited from Lewln and associates. It was found to be Increasingly difficult to treat social actors In more or less the same way as Inanimate objects. to be able to perform experiments. Clearly. even Lewln and colleagues did not want to deny the subjectivity of the people partaking In experiments. They did believe, however, that lt was poss ible to suspend this subjectivity for experimental periods. only to reintroduce lt when the experiment had come to an end. This called for a delimitation of the experiment In time and space which proved extremely difficult. not to say Impossible, to achieve. It demanded. furthermore. that the experimenter could turn the subjectivity of the partners off and on, according to need, another difficult condition to meet. Along with this there emerged a successive decoupllng of field efforts from one single, grand theory of the kind represented by the early version of the soclo­ technical school. Since no unequivocal set of design criteria could mediate between theory and experiment, the relationship between theory and ' practice ' had to become looser. Different theories or elements of theory could be Intro­ duced, to help deal with processes of change, even In one and the same work­ place. The most significant event to follow In the wake of the experiments was a workshop organized Jointly by the labor market parties and research throughout most of the 1 970s (Engelstad and 0degaard 1 979) . It was In this workshop that the major break with the experimental approach emerged for the first time. In the form of a rather simple change, but one that had far-reaching consequences. While the workshop started out as an event In the service of the diffusion of the experiences from the experiments. 1t subsequently changed direction, becoming a discussion forum that focused on the problems and challenges of the participating enterprises. These were placed In focus, and experience from the experiments fed Into the process only to the extent that lt could help the participating enterprises deal with their challenges. In this could be found a major change In the figure ground configuration: Instead of the experimental sites emerging as the figure. with new enterprises forming a background. the new enterprises were lifted forwards to become the figure and the experimental sites shifted Into the back­ ground. From here and onwards the experimental sites were being Identified as resources to be utlltzed but not as ' models to be applied ' . The notion of 'theory ' as commonly understood Is a set. or series. of words, ' about ' reality. Generally. In ' theory language ' , the world Is treated referenttally, that Is, as something that exists In an objective sense. Furthermore, this ' external object ' Is described In terms of what In Shatter and Gustavsen (1 999) Is called a 'single order of connectedness ' or. If this Is found difficult to actually achieve, 1t

RESEARCH AND THE C HALLENGES OF WORK ING LIFE

89

sill functions as an Ideal. But Is lt really possible to actually design and steer real developments from such a platform? Can an objectlfled. distanced, single order understanding really help us when faced with practical sltuatlons that are . at least on the surface, experienced as being · near' , crowded with subjects and displaying a number of different orders of connectedness? In efforts to approach this problem, In the context of the 1 970s and early 1 980s. the analysis performed by Habermas In Theory and Practice (1 973) proved a fruitful point of departure. In this analysts Habermas argues for a separation between theory and practice: while formation of theory Is, as a point of departure. a search for ' truth' or 'rightness ' , practices are shaped to achieve success In the real world. Theory can Inform practices, and practlces are often the raw materials of theory. but there Is no one-to-one relationship between theory and practice. They belong to different realms of human activity. Essentially, Habermas sees the relationship between theory and practice as one of three different but Interdependent discourses: a discourse on theory. a discourse on practice, and a discourse on how to link them. According to Habermas. In the linking discourse theory should, In principle, fill the function of pointing out alternatives to the practices · that are· to promote the understanding necessary for the emergence of new practices. This Is actually enlightenment. 'To be enlightened ' , however, Is not necessarily the same as actually having devel­ oped new practices. One may be able to understand that the world Is a really awful place without being able to do anything about lt. Consequently. to move from enlightenment to practice Is a move of Its own. with Its own tasks and challenges. Applied to our own experiences. this approach could help cast some of the problems and challenges facing development research In working life In a new form: first. In explicitly recognizing the lack of any kind of • structural Isomor­ phism ' between theory and practice, lt became possible to approach theory as well as practice as phenomena In their own right. They were linked, surely. but through what mechanisms and In what ways was open to a new assessment. More specifically, 1t was no longer obligatory to look at the development of practices as 'applied theory' . nor even as theory-driven development. Sometimes new prac­ tices may actually be ·applied theory' . and at other times they may emerge out of theory-driven processes, but no such links should be taken for granted ahead of the real events. Under this emerging ' freedom from theory' lt became possible to place a stronger focus on practices 'as such' and see If this could provide new perspec­ tives on theory at a later stage. These points are Important to note since many of the trends. from the 1 980s onwards, In workplace development and associated forms of research, came to coincide with the Intellectual waves generally referred to as post-modernism, de-constructlvlsm. and the like. Much of the development Indicated above can actually be described through the use of terms of this kind.

90

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

It ls more Important to note that, while these trends were obviously Impor­ tant, ln the kJnd of research described ln this book there has always been a practical. constructlve agenda present, which has exerted as much, or more, Influence. The need to reassess the role of theory emerged, for Instance, out of problems encountered when using theory ln practice and not out of the mobiliza­ tion of more or less theoretlcal arguments against theory - the special kJnd of scientific masochism characterizing much post-modernism. It is, furthermore. Impossible to undertake deep and long term obllgatlons to share the development of new practices with other actors purely from a · decon­ structivlst · perspective. At some stage one needs to stop deconstructlng to create a platform for positively constructing new practices.

Developing Practices: From 'Using a Tool' to Building ImtJtutions To ' turn to practice ' ls one thing. But what does this Imply? What ' is' practice ' ? I n principle, this question should be easy to answer since practice must be all that ls not ' theory ' . Since theory ls a highly cherished concept ln all kinds of research, one should expect ' theory' to be well defined. But this Is not the case. and for rather strong reasons. To see an exceedingly complex world as falling within one or the other of two pre-glven categories is, of course. not poss i ble. Words like ' theory' and ' practlce' are parts of an Infinite number of language games and each such game must be penetrated to understand their meaning. Along with the disappearance of universal reason goes the disappearance of the universal mean­ Ing of the word which expresses the domain within which universal reason can be ' found ' . Instead, what we need to d o Is literally speaking to find a practical way of defining practice. (Incidentally. lf we need to find a practical way ln which to define practlce we need to find a practlcal way ln which to define theory. too.) A practical way means to take, as a point of departure. the situation ln which one finds oneself and the language games used by the ' Inside actors' . In these games the word ' practlce ' will appear ln certain contexts. and so will the word ' theory ' . When research looks at ' practice ' as a theme, the examples tend to be simple. such as grabbing a hammer and driving ln a nail (generally relying on ' tacit knowledge') . Obviously, there are exceptions, e.g. Habermas ( 1 973) who deals with practlces as the constructlon of society. Even ln the work group phase. the kind of practices of Interest to work research were somewhat more complex than driving nails, since most work groups, even ln simple productlon processes, face more complex tasks. In the next major · campaign ' to confront developmentally oriented work research ln Norway. however. the complexity of the practices Involved became the core Issue.

RESEARCH AND THE C HALLENGES OF WORKI NG LIFE

91

The campaign In this case emerged out of the discussions on workplace health and safety that were triggered off In the 1 960s as a part of the then emerging debate on pollution of the environment. During the 1 970s most Indus­ trialized countries took steps to Introduce new strategies and new practices In this field, generally with new legislation as the main element. In Norway this process took off In 1 972. when the government decided on a new. major reform In workplace health and safety. In this reform. the research group that had organized and designed the development process from the field experiments with new forms of work organization, up to and Including the partlclpatlve forms of development emerging In the early 1 970s. was asked to participate (Gustavsen and Hunnlus 1 98 1 ) . Many of the contributions from this research group came to dwell on questions having to do with how to mobilize local actors to actually focus on. and do something about. risks and dangers In the workplace. It would be all to the good to Introduce a new generation of demands. requirements and threshold limit values for exposure, but 1t would lead to little unless adequate workplace activi­ ties could be triggered. To some extent bodies like the public labor Inspectorate could be used In thJs context but 1t would be an Illusion to believe that a major reform In working life could be carr ied through without a reasonable degree of active Involvement from a reasonable share of Norwegian workplace actors, on both sides. The question to emerge. then. was how to achieve this? Without going Into detail here (the Interested reader Is referred to Gustavsen and Hunnlus 1 98 1 and to Gustavsen 1 98 1 ) this Implied a rather complex strategy Involving the way In which the legislative requirements were expressed, the way the role of such bodes as the labor Inspectorate and the occupatlonal health services were shaped and much more. First, the law Itself had to be designed In such a way that 1t could help promote local activity and not merely lay down new specifications and threshold limit values. To achieve this, the law had to deal with Issues like local activity plans and employee participation and lt had to Incorporate Issues like work organization In Its measures. Second. the bodies and agencies operating In the Interface between public policies and enterprise acts had to be able to master activity-Initiating parameters and not only to formulate requirements or contribute expert knowledge. Third. the local parties had to be Induced to view health and safety as a major prerequisite for productivity and quality. to really get them to mobilize the requisite Interest. Fourth, Insofar as constructive development depends on knowledge and competence not present among the workplace actors, these resources had to be made available from outside. Finally. all elements need to work along the same trajectory to mutually reinforce each other.

92

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

To ' construct ' such a ' reform machinery' Is, fundamentally. a practical task. The construction to be created, however, has a very high degree of complexity, posing numerous challenges along the road. These challenges cannot be met simply by ' doing ' , they also need reflection, or discourse. but, as Habermas points out: first and foremost practical discourse. What, then, about ' theory '?

Bullding Institutions and the Role of Research To build a new ' Institutional order' In working life Is a task that can be informed, but not steered by, theory. On the other hand. it turned out to be rather difficult to maintain a clear separatlon between theory and practice. It was. for Instance, not possible to ' first · clarify what theory had to say about such a reform and then carry out the reform Itself as a ' second' and separate step. What could be done ' ln advance' was to give some outline. some sketches, of what the reform could look like that could draw on theory. Even the theoretical Inputs Into these sketches were no simple portfolio, however, that could easily be located in ' theoretical space ' ; rather, they ranged from theory about policy formation and administra­ tion, via legal theory and theory of organlzatlon, to theory within fields like preventive medicine and epidemiology and further on to soclo-techntcal and related theory about the workplace. When the reform started to roll and the various processes were launched, questions of using theory to help identify and deal with Issues and problems emerged In literally thousands of contexts. The Interplay between theory and practice soo n turned Into an exceedingly complex landscape that nobody could oversee. Rather than 'setting the scene' ahead of Ume, theory (and related resources) actually came to functlon as an on-line resource In numerous part­ processes at numerous points In time and space. In this context a number of new challenges emerged, going far beyond simply stating that theory and practlce are different discourses. Among the challenges that came to take on serious proportlons during thJs reform campaign was, for Instance, to locate the right contribution at the right place In social space at the rtght tlme. To state that theory and practice can mutually Inform each other Is one thing. but how to actually create situatJons where such mutual lnformatton could occur, Is something different. We had, for instance, numerous workplaces where there was reason to believe that · stress · . In the sense given the word by Selye ( 1 957) , was present and we had, not least In Scandinavia, a good portfolio of research, theory. methods and experts In the field (Frankenhauser and Gardell 1 976; Levi 1 97 1 : Karasek and Theorell 1 990). But how was one to bring them together: how could we create flows of theoretlcally generated ideas Into the workplaces that could help ' enlighten' the actors as well as lead them to construct new practices? Obviously, In dealing with more than 6 million workplaces In

RESEARCH AND THE C HALLENGES OF WORK ING LIFE

93

Sweden and Norway alone, the problem could hardly be solved by sending the best theoretical authorities on lecture tours to the workplaces. nor were people In general able to read the research texts. This led to Issues like the possibilities of getting the essentially naturalist occupational health services to work with Issues of 'stress ' and work organization, and what would be needed to achieve this: more developmentally oriented roles for the public labor Inspectorate, and much more. The point that it was Insufficient to bring challenges and theories together once and for all on some kind of macro-level. I.e. In the context of deciding on Instructions and bye-laws, provided the grounds for a process perspective on theory. Theory Is not used In ' one-time ' situations but has to play a role over extended periods of time, often Indefinitely. As theory can help Inspire the development of new practices, the new practices start to represent new Inputs to the theoretical process. and so on. Furthermore, there was no question of ·one theory ' but of numerous theories. In fact, a health and safety reform In working life can actually come to mobilize just about all theories 'that are ' , since there Is almost no limit to what can be relevant. The problem was not so much to declare the mutual interdependence between theory and practice as to give a specific form to this Interdependence: or rather: forms, since it Is not a question of one single type of link. Rather, the links were numerous, different as well as continuously shifting. If, say. a local union somewhere came to express an Interest In 'stress ' the core problem was not to get ' the best authority' to give a talk, it was to give them whatever authority had some time available to help provide for a settlng where theory and practice could mutually Inform each other In such a way that fruitful developments could occur, even If the authority was not even the second or third best. ' Place ' , ' time' and ' context' were the core Issues In playing theory Into the extremely complex process landscape. To summarize, the experience from this 'campaign' was a strengthening of the need for a process perspective on theory. together with a need to have a broad range of theoretical resources available. Rather than Identifying ' the best theory' In the abstract the problem was ' to get the right theory to the right place at the right time ' - In literal terms. one of logistics. This Is linked to the character of the ' reform process ' : great complexity, a large number of 'themes' , numerous points of enlightenment and formation of practices. This problem of ' logistics' can also be seen as one of communication: on the one hand we have a · practical situation ' that can be enriched by something we can call ' theory ' : on the other hand there are sources of relevant theory: both repre­ sented by people. How does one get them on speaking tenns? By posing the problem In this way we move directly Into the field created by Habermas ( 1 973) . when the relationship between theory and practice Is seen as one of mutual dependence but not one of structural Identity. Theory Is generally 'about ' practice but Is not, In Itself, practice. Nor can it be turned Into practice

94

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

simply by making practlce correspond point-by-point to the theory. Theory can Inform practlce: lt can help make lt better or more rational. but the process through which this takes place Is one of Interplay and not one of converting the one directly Into the other. The problems and challenges facing the one who has to develop practice are different from those facing the theoretician. The · mecha­ nism· through which theory and practice mutually Influence each other Is com­ munication. This led to an Immediate forerunner of ED 2000: The LOM program In Sweden.

The LOM Program and Communication as the Core Element in Workplace Development While a 'turn to discourse ' gradually emerged as an Inherent part In the develop­ ments sketched above, 1t was the LOM program In Sweden that gave this turn a more explicit shape In terms of program design as well as In terms of the more specific approaches to workplace development. ThJs program Is presented In Gustavsen ( 1 992) and In Naschold et al. ( 1 993) as well as In a series of later analyses and treatises. In the brief review given below. the emphasis will be on two maln aspects: first. the basic approach. or · mechanism · of the program. called ' democratic dialogue' . Second. the ' discourse formatlon ' within which this gen­ erative mechanism was applied. Although the program primarily aJmed at workplaces, 1t was a major point to locate each workplace within a broader terrain made up of other workplaces and of various kinds of supportive and lnstltutlonal actors. This sum total of actors and the patterns they form can be seen as a discourse formatlon. When the task of constructlng ED 2000 later emerged, this Idea of seeing development as the creation of a discourse formation - or, alternatively, a set of lnterllnked formations - was carried on. Initially In the form of the modular construction of ED 2000.

The Idea of Democratic Dialogue In line with his view on the relationship between theory and practice as being discursive rather than one of · direct conversion ' , Habermas placed his main focus on the discourse as such (Habermas 1 984/87 : McCarthy 1 976) . Basically. the degree of ratlonallty Inherent In a given social order depends not only on Its structural characteristics but also on the way 1t has been created. Is it, for Instance, the product of traditionalism and superstJUon or Is 1t created by free and Informed agents In open discourse? That this makes a difference Is a point on which 1t Is

RESEARCH AND THE C HALLENGES OF WORKI NG LIFE

95

easy to reach agreement in our knowledge-oriented dynamic world. From this point - rather simply expressed here - Habermas goes on to create a new reason with communication at its center. In principle, good solutions demand good communication and the problem becomes to define what good communica­ tion ' is ' . From this point of departure Habermas erects a maJor construction. with claims to unlversallty. At the core of this construction is a set of perspectives on ·good ' or · free communication ' . such as the need for the communication to be free of such forms of pollution as power and manipulation. However well argued and persuasive this theoretical construction looked. it nevertheless posed some challenges to people involved in rather pragmatic devel­ opment processes. If it is so that what we have witnessed over the years is a successive breakdown of universal reason and grand theory pertaining to the structure of the phenomena we work with. and an ensuing turn towards the mechanisms through which the phenomena are created. is it reasonable to try to express these generative mechanisms in terms of (a new) universal reason? While it was seen as well founded to retain the baste idea there was, in a pragmatic workplace development context, a need to develop an alternative platform for the criteria used to identify good communication. Two points of anchorage offered themselves. First, experience as it had actually been acquired over the years in projects, programs and other processes. The · turn to discourse ' was a change in figure ground relationship rather than the introduction of a completely new element. There had been quite a number of 'discourses ' involved, for instance. in doing workplace experiments (in fact, the slgnlflcance of ' the discourse ' can be saJd to go as far back as Hawthorne. in the sense that in some of the classical interpreta­ tions of this project a rise in productivity was llnked to · the surrounding activities· rather than the experiment itself (Glllesple 1 99 1) ; these 'surrounding activities' can hardly have been anything but conversations) . Reflecting on these discourses , it would be possible to establlsh some criteria. Since no expllcit research had been done on this aspect at the time, the criteria would have to be tentative. However. this was not seen as a maJor problem. We were entering a new phase of workplace development projects and these projects would in themselves come to function as a learning ground. The intention was not to exclude communication criteria from the learning process. Consequently, it would be possible to test them against ' what works' and to perform processes of reflection · on llne · . as the processes started to unfold (RaftegArd 1 998) . In this way a self-valldation mechanism was bullt into the program. A further possible point of anchorage was democracy as lnstitutionallzed and given practical expressions in society. Communication is, after all, a main ele-

96

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

ment In all democratic constitutions. The written ones. generally with roots In the French constitution of 1 79 1 . emphasize. for Instance, freedom of speech, freedom of association. the right of those concerned to be heard before decisions are made, and a number of other elements relating to communication. These provide further points to draw on when giving direction to workplace discourses. The Institu­ tional characteristics and operative practices of democracy as an historical heri­ tage do not give unequivocal pointers; they need to be Interpreted to be applicable at a workplace level. At this point. however. 1t Is possible to rely on the learning potential of the process Itself; no Initial Interpretation needs to be fixed and absolute, 1t just needs to be given starting points. Since lt Is quite common, not least. by the way, In theoretical reflections about the practices of democracy, to point out all the ambiguities and · model differences' associated with the concept of ·democracy· 1t may be worth whJle to point out that many of these are theoretical rather than practical. Problems of the type 'What If the dictator Is elected by a majority?' seldom emerge In practice and In particular not In workplace development practice. The problems that tend to emerge are problems like what mandate a shop steward has from his constituency: who can be said to be concerned by a decision. and suchlike. Even problems of this kind are difficult enough - when they are decontextuallzed. When they emerge In specific settings, with reference to specific questions and Issues. many of the difficulties tend to evaporate. The questions need not be answered In the general and abstract the need will relate to what mandate a specific shop steward has In relation to a specific Issue from a specific group of fellow workers or to who. among a specific circle of people, are concerned by a specific Issue, such as the organization of a production line. On the basis of these points, the Idea of good, or constructive communica­ tion, was expressed In the following set of criteria: - Work experience Is the point of departure for participation. - All concerned by the Issues under discussion should have the possibility of participating. - Dialogue Is based on a principle of give and take, or two-way discourse. not one-way communication (partlclpants must be responsive to each other) . - Participants are under an obligation to help other partlclpants be active In the dialogue. - All participants have the same ' rank' In the dialogue arenas. - Some of the concrete experiences possessed by the participants on entering the dialogue must be seen as relevant. - It must be possible for all partlclpants to gain an understanding of the topics under discussion (time must be spent on achieving this) . - An argument can be rejected only after exploration of Its details and not. for Instance, on the grounds that 1t emanates from a source of limited legitimacy.

RESEARCH AND THE C HALLENGES OF WORKI NG LIFE -

-

97

All arguments that are to enter the dialogue must be expressed by the actors present. All participants are obliged to accept that other participants may have better arguments than their own. Among the Issues that can be made subject to discussion are also the ordinary work roles of the partJclpants - no-one Is exempt from such a discussion. The dialogue should be able to Integrate a growing number of differences {Indeed, it Is precisely from their Integration Into a whole that a specific perspective attains a meaning and that a relational landscape can emerge) . The dialogue should continuously generate decisions that provide platforms for joint action.

This Is the version of dialogue criteria given In Shatter and Gustavsen ( 1 999) : there are some details that differ from the original conceptualization (Gustavsen and Engelstad 1 986: Gustavsen 1 992) . While they were, In the beginning, called ·criteria' . they were later renamed 'orientational directives' (Shatter and Gustavsen 1 999) . Emerging In a border­ land between 'theory' In a more classical sense on the one hand, and a more pragmatic ' learning by doing ' perspective on the other, later development has Implied a continued · pragmatic turn' (McCarthy 1 996) rather than a · return to theory' . The shift from 'criteria' to 'orientational directives ' Is Intended to em­ phasize this. There are, however. no major dlscontlnuities In the way In which the criteria have been used In concrete conversations. The combination of words Inherent In ·democratic dialogue ' can be seen as a market oriented slogan where both words actually say much of the same. This specific way of conceptualizing the list of criteria partly has Its background In the need to make · the theory of communication ' communicable - a not unimportant aspect - partly In the need to emphasize the roots of the criteria In democratic practices rather than In c lasslcal theory.

Local Learning Arenas A core challenge In the work environment reform was to reach all enterprises and workplaces - there are about 300,000 enterprises In even a small country like Norway. to which can be added a substantial number of public agencies and Institutions. Furthermore. each workplace could need different types of knowl­ edge and the needs could shift over time. Adding to the problems was the point that much knowledge. to have an Impact, needs to function over some time, whereas a number of workplaces are subject to turnover of personnel or other changes that can easily break a learning process. To feed each specific workplace ' directly' with the knowledge needed was

98

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

In actual practice not only an Impossible task but even a pointless one. Instead of going straight to the knowledge Issue, there was a need to create learning environments In terms of workplace mechanisms that could receive and absorb knowledge and put lt Into play over tlme. The enterprise level work environment (health and safety) committees were supposed to fill this role, but they could do this only to a limited extent, since each committee often had to cover far too many workplaces to really deal with them In knowledge terms. During this reform, quite a substantial number of additional bodies and groups emerged that could functlon as nodes in learning processes. Since they were not part of the formal system instituted by the law, however, no data is available that can provide a basis for an assessment of how widespread · project forms ' of work actually became at the time. What can be said for sure Is that, although they were on the advance. they were less widespread than what the reform actually demanded. In the light of this experience. much emphasis was placed on local learning environments In the LOM program. Besides democratic dialogue, this was the main element of the program. Being an early effort to create learning environ­ ments, the LOM program had a fairly simple design. departing from four levels, or types, of arenas: - Arenas inside each organJzatlon. which could range from conferences to project groups and workplace meetings. - joint arenas for small groups of organizations; as a point of departure the program was based on linking organizations in groups of four. Again, confer­ ences was a main measure. together with other linking events. such as Joint project and work groups. mutual visits and more. - joint arenas for combinations of such ' groups of four' , in this program called networks. - The program as such. where some Joint arenas were established. in particular for the researchers. In addition to this. there were some efforts aimed at creating links between the program, the labor market parties and other ' macro-level actors' , but these came to little. The Work Environment Fund. which organized about 1 0 programs of the same volume as LOM, did not link the programs to each other, nor to other reform processes in Swedish working life. such as The Work Life Fund (Gustavsen et al. 1 996) . One consequence was that each program could not become more than a · pilot· and if a pilot is not converted into broader actlon streams it will not survive. While the LOM program certainly came to play a role in emphasizing ' dialogue' and 'arenas ' as core aspects of organization development - words that have become mainstream in this context - the specific structures generated by the program did not survive. The experience was. however. present when ED 2000 was developed.

RESEARCH AND THE C HALLENGES OF WORK ING LIFE

99

Concluding Remarks What has been given above Is a sketchy presentation of what has In actual practice been a much more complex development. To summarize the presentation means, of course. to simplify even more: with this reservatlon we have seen a long term development with a point of origin In · science ' , as it was generally understood In the first post-World War 11 period. In this understanding. science represented a privileged access to truth. Truth, In turn. had to emerge In terms of general theory resting on full, complete, and thoroughly Investigated cases. If a case was to be created it had to be done through approaches as closely related as possible to the laboratory experiment. Whereas it was possible to build · true theory ' on a reasonable number of convincing cases. lt turned out to be difficult to turn such achievements Into further practical changes. A 'diffusion problem ' emerged. which was given a number of different Interpretations at the time. Through contlnuous efforts to create changes In working life it emerged. however. that the core problem had to do with the Interplay between theory and practice. In creatlng 'true theory' research did, at the same tlme, turn workplace experiences Into theory language. a kind of language that does not automatically function In practlcal development contexts, maybe not so much because it cannot be understood by the actors concerned as because it does not couch Its points In action terms. It became necessary to see theory and practice as different activities - or discourses - linked to each other but not In a one-to-one relationship. In the ensuing developments, Increasing emphasis was placed on practices and In particular on highly complex practices such as national reform programs where numerous actors and Institutions are Involved. In efforts to link theory and practice, the growing complexity of the practices concerned gave rise to new generations of challenges: it Is not sufficient to · have · a theory, it needs to be linked to specific workplace processes, which Is not so difficult If we can assume that a few workplaces can functlon as models for others but which becomes exceedingly difficult If such assumptions cannot be made. How do we feed theory Into hundreds of thousands of workplace development processes. often with shifting panoramas of actors and problems as well? Out of challenges of this kind there emerged a focus on workplace-based learning environments and on communication: partly within each constellation of learning actors, partly across Its boundaries to other constellations. The LOM program In Sweden became a kind of test program, or pilot. program. for a communication-learning-arena-based approach to workplace development. It Is not possible to design a strategy of this kind that can reach all workplaces In one sweeping round. What was believed to be possible was to create a process that could gradually · pull In· more and more actors and organizations so that lt could become a significant wave In working life. The LOM program did not achieve

1 00

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

this. but in designing ED 2000 this was actually seen as the core challenge. The experiences with the agreement on development, as they were interpreted at the time. were not seen as calling so much for new ideas concerning how to organize workplaces and enterprises as for more co-operation and exchange around experi­ ences with the ideas that were actually being tried in Norwegian working life.

Chapter 6

Contemporary European Developments Bjom Gustavsen

Introduction Some of the Norwegian and Scandtnavtan processes that led up to the fonnation of ED 2000 have been presented above. There were, of course. other sources of Inspiration, too. In particular In terms of broader European developments. In trying to draw points and benefits from such a perspective the first problem, however, was to identify what to look at, what sources to consult. Some of the historical forerunners of ED 2000 had a maJor focus on work organization. while associated themes like leadership. technology and the like were seen as clustering around work organization. So far work organization held a core position. The underlying assumption was that work organization could be seen as a prime force with an ability to · pull ' the other themes along. Even In this period it could be difficult to identify what efforts could be compared to each other but it was far more easy than it Is today. It has become Increasingly hard to maintain a central location for one single theme. Several themes have now moved Into a position as points of origin for reasoning and effort. Two examples: distinguishing development organization from work orga­ nization has Implied seeing. as a theme In Its own right. the roles. activities and processes that have to do with change and development as such. changes In patterns of work organization included. Although the distinction Is primarily analytical it nevertheless established a new maJor focal point. Another Is the emphasis currently placed on networks. clusters and regions as a framework for enterprise development. In contemporary European thinking these Inter-organi­ zational relationships have clearly attained a status as themes In their own right and not only as reflections of other themes. But further problems enter the scene : programs like LOM In Sweden and Humanization of Work I Work and Technology In Germany (Frtcke 2000) saw the light of day In societies where the bodies of the nation state were still taking

1 02

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

most of the lnltlatlves, such as central research councils or the union and em­ ployer confederations. even government agencies. Today this Institutional picture Is much more complex: given the growing emphasis on networks. regions and similar forms of development coalitions. new organizing actors. such as regional ones. have entered the scene. In some societies, such as Germany and Italy, there are regional politlcal lnstltutlons who play a role, In countries where such Institu­ tions are absent. or are much weaker. such as Sweden. reglonally based forms of co-operation nevertheless emerge and with roles of Increasing Importance to play (Gustavsen et al. 1 996: Berggren et al. 1 999) . lnltlatlves and efforts emanating from these kinds of actor constellations will by definition not be national and they can differ within one and the same society. The growing number and complexity of themes Involved In all economic growth strategies today have made it Increasingly difficult to maintain clear-cut lnstltutlonal responsibilities. be it on the national or the regional level. While. for Instance. the labor market parties my feel responsible for a theme like work organization. they will generally experience a more remote relationship to reglon­ alizatlon. The complexities Imply that simple comparisons are no longer possible. No single actor or group of actors can claim to be able to develop and maintain an overview of what happens In Europe within all the areas of significance to ED 2000 , ranging from work organization to regional development. from wage systems to global competition. from market strategies to safety In production. and with a broad and shifting range of actors Involved In all the Issues. running from the European Commission via national governments and lnstitutlons. the labor market parties. the research councils and other central actors to regional ones and further on to enterprise and workplace actors. What can actually be done Is to point at some lines of evolution and some more specific examples that illustrate what Is going on within some fields and among some groups of actors.

Some General Trends It should first be noted, however. that the complexity In Itself Is significant: strategies for Innovation and economic growth today Involve a broad range of themes In combination with a broad range of actors and a multiplicity of pro­ cesses. There are several points to be discovered In this. All fruitful approaches to economic growth are, today. multldlmenslonal. Economic growth can no longer be created through manipulating one. or a few, variables. such as the Interest rate or a few technologies. What Is needed Is far more. such as human skills and human motivation. the ability to organize the right flows, links and lnterdependencles. the ability to support the emergence of entrepreneurs, of processes of Innovation, and much more. This In Itself means

C ONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS

1 03

that many actors have to be Involved. but from different points of departure and with different tasks In the total process. This also Implies that the various elements of a strategy for growth all tend to be subject to continuous redefinition. In the 1 960s and · 70s it was thought that such a theme as work organization could be subject to a permanent and universal set of design criteria. There was thought to be ' one best way ' to organize people at work. Today. this 'one best way' does not attract much Interest from people Involved In practical efforts. Clearly there are some broad principles, or remind­ ers. that should guide all development of work organization, such as the need to ensure a reasonable opportunity for learning In the work role. for making deci­ sions and for establishing social relationships. To express such principles In terms of specific design criteria. however. Is another matter. The conditions 'surround­ Ing ' work organization are always · on the move · : always constituting new challenges that have to be met under new boundary conditions. This turns the Issue of work organization Into a reflexive topic - a topic that can never be settled once and for all but which must be made the subject of continuous discussion and new solutions (Ennals and Gustavsen 1 998 - the point Is a central one In the main policy document of the Work and Technology Consortium, a group for the co-ordination of work organization research In Europe. Initiated by The European Commission ' s DG V) . That themes are linked to each other, on the other hand, does not mean that they can be seen as Identical to each other. A characteristic of the modern complexity Is that it can not be made subject to simple reductionlsm where themes can be collapsed Into each other. The evolution of processes like leadership. work organization and motivation will never follow the same logics as development of new computer programs. There Is a need for both, and they need to Interact, but the lnltlatives and processes called for are different. This Interaction, furthermore. cannot be achieved by one single authority taking charge of all aspects. No authority has the competence to do this. nor Is it possible to be an 'authority' within all the fields simultaneously since the fields are different and the ability to gain status as an authority Is subject to different logics and processes. The need to handle a broad range of Issues following different logics and patterns of evolution within one and the same overall process of economic growth Imposes great demands on the Integrative forces and mechanisms. Some of the reasons for the growth In the economic significance of regions and other more or less ' local ' actor constellations can probably be found here. The Integrative mechanisms become so complex and In such a need for a platform In terms of social relationships that the ordinary Integrative mechanisms of the nation state are no longer able to cope. At least, this Is the kind of Interpretation of such regional successes as the Italian ones (In particular Emllla-Romagna. Veneto and Tuscany) that currently seem to be gaining ground (see. for lnsance, Cossentino et al. 1 996; cf. Ashelm 1 996) .

1 04

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

Patterns of Evolution in Some Countries If we turn to Sweden we see that it is actually the process of regionaltzation that seems to emerge as a maJor characteristic of the development in recent years. Traditionally. Sweden has bee n a strong nation state with an abtlity to organize ­ or at least influence the direction of - quite a number of the processes of significance to economic growth. The fleld covered by ED 2000 overlaps with one of the maJor famtly of themes to which the efforts of the Work Environment Fund were dedicated. Establlshed in 1 972 with an initial budget of SEK 25 mtllton. this fund gradually evolved unttl the budget. in the mid- 1 980s, came to exceed more than SEK 500 million annually. Although such themes as work organization. workplace leadership. socio-technical aspects of work and ap­ proaches to change and development did not consume the maJor part of the budget. it constituted an important part and a part that was growing in relative terms throughout the period (Oscarsson 1 997) . Sweden at this time probably spent more money per capita on R&D within work organization and associated themes than any other European country. The LOM program. drawn upon as a source above. was one of the programs to arise out of this fund. A further maJor effort came with the Work Life Fund. Brought into being by an extraordinary work environment tax initiated by the government as an anti­ inflationary measure in the economically heated late 1 980s. this fund. with a budget of SEK 1 0 btllon. was fairly extraordinary. In the period 1 990- 1 995 the fund came to generate 25,000 workplace development projects and about half of the SEK I 0 btllion were spent on work organization and related themes (Gustavsen et al. 1 996) . While research was not intended to be part of the activities of this fund, it came to give rise to a substantial number of research proj ects and projects on the borderltne between research and development. The fleld of work organization, participation and approaches to change has received support from other sources as well. in terms of other research money than that distributed by the Work Environ­ ment Fund. via the renewal funds, and to some extent via NUTEK and other actors. That these investments have not been without fruit has been demonstrated in a number of ways. In the 1 970s and · 80s Swedish firms attracted international attention for their spearhead efforts in the field of work organization and worker participation. Obviously. such examples as Volvo 's plants in Kalmar and Uddevalla owed their existence to much more than R&D. but that Swedish and international research played a role is beyond doubt. When the Dubltn F ounda­ tion carried out a study of participative forms of work organization in Europe (EPOC Group 1 997) . Sweden emerged as the country with the most emphatic results in this respect (this study has. on the other hand. some maJor weaknesses , in terms of very low response frequencies in a number of countries, as well as a lack of distinction between work organization and development organization) .

C ONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS

1 05

During the 1 990s a shift started to emerge In Sweden. When the Work Life Fund came to the end of Its five year lifespan. no new central effort emerged. This Fund had, however, developed a regional organization. Basing Its own activities on 24 regional offices. these offices had gradually developed contacts and co­ operation. not only with firms within their region but with the regional representa­ tives of the labor market parties and with regional authorities. These so-called regional partnerships came to form a core element In the approach developed In the mld- 1 990s to form the Swedish version of the EU fund ' s Objective 4 pro­ gram. aimed at competence development In small flrms. In Sweden this program came to acquire the form of a workplace development program rather than a training program (Gustavsen et al. 1 996) . These partnerships have been further developed during the period of the Objective 4 program ' s existence. The Work Environment Fund was reorganized In the mld- 1 990s too. Much of the reorganization consisted of scaling the fund down and focusing Its efforts more strongly on research. Some of Its development functions were transferred to the Swedish Institute for Working Life. In the same period, a so-called 'third task · was written Into the university legislation. In the form of a duty to not only teach and do research but to also become actively Involved In development. particularly at a regional level. Although it was In certain respects controversial. this reform has actually pushed to the forefront the way of utlllztng research that can be found In ED 2000. but In a generalized form (Brulln and Halvarsson 1 998) . Although the picture Is complex and the development of the various strands far from linear, there Is a movement towards regtonalization of the growth Impulses and of such associated actors as R&D. Economic growth Is at the moment quite uneven, with some regions - such as Western Smaland - doing very well, while others - such as Eastern Sm�land. hardly more than one hour's driving away - being below national averages on a number of economic param­ eters. The tendency to link questions pertaining to the classical Internal dimen­ sions of enterprises - such as leadership and work organization - to external processes such as network formation Is quite clear In Sweden. too. Although different In detail. and with far more resources, relatively speak­ Ing. there are elements of similarity between the Swedish development and the pattern reflected In ED 2000: the mix of themes that now fall naturally under efforts within the field of work, organization and partlclpatlon Is much the same, so Is the tendency to shift - or de-center - the learning processes and the associated organization of the 'development coalitions' . Differences are notice­ able In. for Instance. the role of the social partners. While In Norway the central partners are key organizers this Is no longer the case In Sweden. This difference Is explainable In terms of the role that was assigned the funds. where the social partners participated on the boards but did not take frontline responslbtllty for development, and also In the role played by the large enterprises - with Volvo In

1 06

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

the lead - which shifted much of the political dimension of workplace develop­ ment to company level . At the turn of the Millennium a new debate has emerged in Sweden, on research and development - now called innovation policy - in general . A policy paper initiated by the Government, called ' Research 2000 ' . came to appear as a counterreactlon to the third task and similar developments from Big Academia. For a while it looked as if the new. de-centered and pragmatic patterns were being put at jeopardy. but the policy paper soon encountered resistance. not least from the labor market parties. It seems, at the time of writlng. as if some kind of compromise will be reached that will allow the new patterns to continue (Fiodstrem 1 999) . Among the Nordic countries, Finland has less of a history in the field covered by ED 2000 than Norway and Sweden. In recent years, however, initiatives have emerged in Finland. Major among these is a workplace develop­ ment program. initlated Jointly by the Ministry of Labor and the social partners, which has been in operatlon since 1 996. The Ministry of Labor is responsible for co-ordination of program actlvities in close co-operation with the social partners. Main forms of activity of the program are: ( I ) to promote changes in the ways of operation of Finnish workplaces that can help raise productivity and the quality of working life; (2) to disseminate knowledge related to workplace development; and (3) to strengthen workplace development infrastructure in Finland. The program is funded by the Finnish Government. The total budget of the program from 1 996- 1 999 is FIM 95 million (EUR 1 6 million) . The program finances expert support for workplace development processes: the users carry their own development costs. By the Autumn of 1 999, the program had granted funding to 284 workplace­ inttiated development projects. involving nearly 500 workplaces. The major goals of these initiatives include changeover to. or further development of. team-based work organization, production co-operation between companies. new manage­ ment styles. multi-skilling, the introduction of continuous improvement methods, improvements in the social atmosphere at workplaces, and boo sting working capacity. Many of the projects embrace a number of workplaces. A special appropria­ tion worth FIM 30 million is earmarked for so-called network projects, which aim at creating organizational innovations by involving many companies in close co­ operation with each other in production or other development networks. All major projects will be assessed. Industry and construction together account for about half of all project funding. and the share of the metal industry alone is 30%. The share of local authorities is near 30% and that of the private service sector 1 3%. All sectors, including the tertiary sector. are involved in the program.

C ONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS

1 07

The second focus area deals with the dissemination of knowledge related to workplace development. As part of the program. publtcatlons have been Issued and seminars held, and a comprehensive Information register has been created on the Internet. An Important focus for future activities Is a databank containing project descriptions with ·good practices · . The third focus area concerns strengthening the workplace development Infrastructure In Finland. The program has functioned as a co-operation forum, setting up a comprehensive dialogue between the key stakeholders. It has pro­ moted co-operation between workplaces, various development programs. differ­ ent governmental authorities. R&D Institutes and the social partners. The program has been actively Involved In exchanging Information with other national, regional or transnational programs or networks. Close Hnks have been created with the European Work and Technology Consortium and EWON (European Work Organization Network) as well as German and Norwegian development programs. In particular. In Finland, the unanimous view now prevatls In Government circles, the social partners and other major stakeholders. that there ts a need for publtcly supported workplace development. also In the future. The new Finnish Govern­ ment. which took office In spring 1 999, made a decision to continue the program and promised that Us financial resources would be Increased. During the new program period, strengthening co-operation between workplaces within projects, the workplace development Infrastructure at regional level. the resources of R&D Institutes In research-supported workplace development and International bench­ marking wtll be among the major goals. This Initiative Is probably the closest parallel to ED 2000 that can currently be found In Europe. In their overall alms and architecture the programs are quite stmtlar. At a more specific level of detatl some differences may be present, perhaps In the perceptions of what role research can optimally play In local development contexts. The most noticeable differences are found on three points: first, In the role of the Ministry of Labor. Undertaking a leading role. the Finnish ministry has chosen a course opposite to the one currently pursued by government agencies In Norway. which tend to load all R&D Issues onto one single general­ ized research council. Second, In the user configuration; the program Is open to participation from all kinds of organizations, private and publtc. Third. In Euro­ pean and other International Hnks: more effort has been put Into these relation­ ships In the Finnish program than In ED 2000 . In Germany the launch. In the early 1 970s. of the Humanization of Work program as a part of the program portfolto of the federal Ministry for Science and Technology represents a parallel ministerial tnlttative. This Is by far the longest continuous effort within the field covered by ED 2000 In Europe. since it has been going on for close to 30 years. During this period the program has been subject to

1 08

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

changes: one may speak about three program phases (Fricke 2000) : In the period when the program was called ·humanization of work· it reflected the kind of orlentatlon within the field of work organization that were general In the 1 960s and · 70s. The core problem was seen as the alienating effect of highly specialized ( 'Taylorist') forms of work organization and the challenge to Initiate and design a process that could break with this pattern and generate work roles with a broader scope for learning and personal and social development. In 1 989 the program was renamed 'work and technology' . reflecting the then emergent belief In the need to see work organization as a theme very close to technology and In particular ' new technology' - a concept that spread like wildfire all over the world at the time. Recently. the core focus has been changed once again. with a new basic conceptuallzatlon, now focusing on ' learning · , ' services ' and ' regions ' . This, too, reflects the signs of the times. as touched upon above. The historical evolution and current orientation of this program Is very parallel to the phases we have seen In Scandinavia. Compared to ED 2000. the chief difference Is probably the role of the service sector: this Is still quite modest In ED 2000 but there Is little doubt that future Initiatives. even In Norway. will place a stronger focus on the service sector. There are other Important parallels: one example Is reflectlons on the use of research In workplace development contexts by a union representative who has had occasion to follow the program from Its beginning. In several papers (e.g. Lemlnsky 1 997) he very strongly emphasizes the point that the core problem In using research In workplaces Is the linear nature of theory when compared to the partlclpatlve-lnteractlve nature of real workplace processes. Problems with Imple­ menting theory - of any kind - In a workplace are not that a theory may be wrong, nor that theory Is coached In a language people cannot understand: the Issue Is rather that Implementation of theory presupposes that action takes place In a form and for reasons which are alien to the ways In which workplace practices generally emerge. particularly when experienced from a worker I union perspective. This partlcular program, however. Is only a part of what goes on within the relevant fields In Germany. With Its organization In states ( ' BundesHinder') there are a number of lnltlatlves and processes emanatlng out of actors other than those of the nation state. A special set of conditions emerged when the former Eastern Germany was Incorporated Into the economy of Western Germany - a process that also raised challenges within such fields as organization and regional rela­ tionships and economies. In most of the German regions there are, today. explicit efforts to bring organizational measures to bear on the Issue of economic develop­ ment and growth. One example Is the development foundation reson In Lower Saxony. With Volkswagen as the main sponsor. this foundation has a number of large compa-

C ONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS

1 09

nies as members, a number of universities and other R&D organizations in the region. In addition to the political-administrative authorities of Lower Saxony. This development agency co-ordinates the development of new products between the maJor membership firms - such as the elements needed to form new integrated regional traffic systems - and seeks, In this context. also to promote the emergence of new firms. Networking and other organizational parameters play a maJor role (Ennals and Gustavsen 1 998) . reson forms part of a · discussion forum ' , with participants from Western Sm�land in Sweden and from Emllla-Romagna In Italy. In this forum regional representatives of management. unions, support Institutions and research meet face to face to conduct dialogues on such Issues as regional economies and networking between enterprises. A topic of growing significance Is the relation­ ship between work organization, regional frameworks and social networks. The notion that the development of new forms of work and enterprise organization, participation Included, can be more fruitfully promoted by reglonally structured social relationships than by perhaps any other configuration of actors, which can to some extent be found also behind ED 2000, Is one of the most important issues in need of further exploration today. The point that this link may be of maJor significance Is one of the reasons for the maJor focus on the Italian regions. Despite lacking programs and other centrally structured efforts comparable to the Northwestern European ones, Italy has moved to the forefront In regional development. The main example, Emllla­ Romagna. rates as number 1 2 within a division of Europe into 1 7 1 regions, with a significantly higher employment rate and income per capita than the Italian average. What has added to the interest in this region is that lt is largely a region of small firms - 95% of the approximately 300,000 firms have fewer than 50 employees - as well as many of the thriving businesses being In conventional branches. such as textiles, building materials (e.g. tiles) and machines. The head of one of the main support organization and Infrastructure-builder in the region, Mazzonis ( 1 998) gives the following reasons for the success: - A strong entrepreneurial spirit; - A high degree of social and economic cohesion; - A high level of social mobility: - Ability to live well up to demands for flexibility and reliability In production: - An efficient regional political superstructure and administration with an abilIty to Interact constructively with economic actors. Although these points are phrased In general terms, there are some quite Impor­ tant elements to be found: the emphasis on social and organlzatlonal dimensions is quite striking - regional success can. in general. be much more readily explained In social than In, say. geographical or technological terms. The Inter­ play between the public and the private sphere is mentioned as well: there Is little

1 10

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

doubt that the regional administration of Emilla-Romagna has functioned In a radically different way than the Italian nation state as organizer of economic growth. A further main element Is the relationships between people within this kind of common culture: relationships of trust and familiarity that can also be utilized for the purpose of creating and coordinating economic growth. These elements allow for what Is sometimes called an ·economy of trust · . When such regions as the Italian ones became more generally known Inter­ nationally - In the early 1 980s - they gave rise to a number of efforts In other countries to create 'networks ' . What was not properly understood at the time was that Emilla-Romagna - and similar successful regions - represent long term processes of a certain scope, or · mass · . Their copies In Northwestern Europe tended to emerge as something entirely different, for Instance small networks between small firms to solve pressing short term problems. such as obtaining cheaper supplies. Even such networks are. of course. sometimes worth creating. This. however. Is something rather different, In need of wholly different reasons and strategies. ED 2000 has not aimed at this kind of network development. Another example of reglonalization and associated development strategies. such as network building. can be found In France, In the changing role of ANACT (Agence Natlonale pour I' Amelioration des Conditions de Travail) . Originally founded by the government (Ministry of Labor) In the 1 970s the main purpose of ANACT was to act as an Intermediary In the relationships between labor and management In French enterprises. This relationship Is seen In terms of a dialogue with a potential to Increase In rationality and fruitfulness through the Intervention of this kind of third party. ANACT was. from the beginning. pro­ vided with regional offices but had a major head office In Paris. In the late 1 980s a development towards a stronger regional perspective emerged. culminating In 1 997 with a move of the head office to Lyon. Much of the reason for this Is the need Improve on the relationships to small enterprises which needs a further development of regional dimensions. In 1 999 the ANACT network was completed: lt counts, at the moment, 22 regional agencies. one per administrative region. Traditionally, ANACT has not had a research mandate. Research has been used for a number of purposes. not least for evaluations. At the moment of wrttting 1t seems. however. as If a development towards linking research more strongly to the overall operations of ANACT Is emerging. One example Is a research program on the arrangement and reduction of working time which has been managed by ANACT since 1 996. Other research activities have been undertaken within fields like performance, workload. MSD, and Impact of Information and competence technology on work organization. The successive development of relationships to research Is something which ANACT shares with labor market parties In Norway and there Is a clear conver­ gence between ANACT and the social partners/research combination founded In ED 2000.

C ONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS

111

' Local Development Coalitions· : Some European Examples While there are few · programs' exactly paralleling ED 2000 . with corresponding difficulties In making direct comparisons on program level, there are many more parallels to the kind of local development coalition that ED 2000 has worked with: forms of co-operation between groups of researchers and groups of enter­ prises. more or less corresponding to the module Idea of ED 2000. A recent study (Ennals and Gustavsen 1 998) has described a number of European development coalttlons. Some examples from this study are presented below. When, ln France. a new aluminum plant was to be built in Dunkirk. the project not only Implied major efforts to upgrade and further develop the relevant technologies. a major effort was also undertaken within the field of competence, co-operation and work organization. The human element. even in a highly auto­ mated process plant. was seen as being of growing rather than diminishing importance. A modern. high technology plant needs highly skilled people in well integrated work roles. This Is ln many ways parallel to approaches found in a number of other contexts, Norwegian process industry not excepted (Qvale 2000). Rather than relying mainly on Internal design teams. co-operation was sought with a number of actors and bodies In the region. making a broad regional support system for the new plant possible. in terms of training, labor market efforts and other measures. Although In many ways resembling a classical design exercise, the coalttion around this exercise was defined as much broader and more complex than what has generally been the tradition. One of the Swedish examples is the ongoing effort to renew and revitalize the classical entrepreneurial culture of Western Sm�land. In particular the community of Gnosjo. Since this Is the region with the highest growth rate. besides Stockholm, it Is recognised that the entrepreneurial culture needs to be reshaped to Include new types of actors. In particular from education, research and devel­ opment. There is also a demand for new forms of co-operation with the employ­ ees and new Interfaces with the publtc sector. One outcome is the creation of the GnosJ" Industrial Development Center as a co-operation between the municipal­ Ity, around 60 enterprises and a number of local unions. ThJs center Is partly organizing new networks. reflecting the need for a new actor structure. partly expanding the relationships with higher education and research. The UK Is represented by a program for the revival of the texttles and clothing Industry In Nottingham and the East Midlands. For a long period this Industry went through a period of deep decline In the 1 980s. when it often lost orders In competition with non-European supplters. However. since the waves of fashion are rolling continuously faster. the retail stores' experience Is that the delivery tlme for remote producers tends to become excessive. In the East Midlands this gave rise to an Initiative to explore the posslblltties for regenerating

1 12

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

some of the clothing and textile Industry. provided that this Industry could handle rapidly changing products and still live up to demands for just-ln-tlme delivery and stable quality. These demands went well beyond what the enterprises had ever lived up to previously. Together with one of the universities In the region. a program was created to help the enterprises develop the requisite competence: Initially In production, and gradually In other areas as well. In the early phase work organization was the core Issue, and gradually each enterprise has expanded Its field of Interest, turning the projects more Into total development processes. From Finland a similar case Is reported, with much the same outcome. The core difference between the Finnish and the UK case Is that while In the UK the point of departure was Job design. In the Finnish projects it was open dialogues. Gradually, the two approaches have approached each other as well. the UK coalition becoming more reflexive, locally constructlvlst and dialogue oriented while design Issues have grown In Importance In the Finnish effort. One of the Gennan examples Is a regional program called the · Bremer Landesprogramm Arbelt und Technlk · . Starting out from a shrinking Industrial sector and a relatively high unemployment level, the maJn thrust of the program Is to explore the potentlal of research to help find solutlons to these kJnds of structural problems. The efforts go In various directions, ranging from Improving network relatlonshlps between a Mercedes-Benz plant and Its local suppliers to supporting the bakery trade through a variety of means, one being an experimen­ tal bakery / laboratory to help the bakeries develop new products. (The bakery case Is Interesting as one of a substantial number of examples found throughout Europe to help promote branches that are In one sense very tradltlonal but at the same time are seen as having major potential If they can be Induced to utilize new technologies as well as develop more Innovative and · entrepreneurial · forms of organization.) From Ireland the example Is the County Enterprise Boards - established to promote businesses on a regional basis - and the utllization, In this context. of the Idea of Plato networks. The core element of this Idea Is to let a group of small firms gain access to mentors from big ones In the form of high level managers. The Italian regions are not cases on a par with the others. With 4 million Inhabitants. Emllla-Romagna alone has a population the size of Norway. If. this notwithstanding. they are Interesting from a Norwegian I Nordic perspective there are several reasons: their economic success, for Instance, Is closely linked to the policies for economic growth that have been pursued by the regional govern­ ments. These policies have placed a great emphasis on Infrastructure and on · hands on ' development support to the enterprises. The last kind of support has been organized through regional development agencies: e.g. ERVET In Emilla­ Romagna and SIAV In Veneto. These agencies, In turn, differentiate on districts and other actor constellations. Tradltlonally, the relatJonshlps with research have been distant but are now being developed rapidly.

C ONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS

1 13

In the debates on the role of the universities in processes of local develop­ ment it may be worth noting that one of the unlversltles supporting the Emilla­ Romagna processes is the university of Bologna which is the oldest university in Europe and in many ways a model for the rest.

Conclusions Can any conclusions be drawn from this comparative snapshot? It may be worth repeating that the main characteristic of the European scene is complexity. Efforts to promote innovation and economic growth are, literally speaking. in a phase of innovation themselves, bringing to the fore a broad range of efforts and activities. Simple pictures cannot be drawn. · A survey of European models ' is no longer a reasonable premiss for making decisions concerning 'where to go ' . Rather. ' learning from Europe ' is primarily a question of develop­ ing selective mutual dependencies that can link Norwegian developments to selected European developments with a view to mutual learning over time. The core question for the future is consequently not 'what can be learned from Europe ' but 'with whom should we learn together'? Although it has historical roots in the issue of work organization, ED 2000 covers a far broader range of themes. The 'new themes' are. furthermore, not seen as derived from work organization but as themes in need of attention and development in their own right. Most approaches to growth and innovation today cover this broad range of themes but they do it in different ways and with different actor configurations in the lead. This means that ' learning from Europe ' is a complex matter since the issue is one of linking quite complex constellations of actors and processes. There is little doubt, however. that in its overall aims, diversity, process and contextual orlentatlon, ED 2000 follows Important general lines of evolution in European innovation policies and back-up strategies. With its orientation towards organizational dimensions and the explicit use of research to promote fruitful processes on various levels of development coalitions - from the workplace to the network and region - ED 2000 is consistent with a general drift towards a greater emphasis on organization and a more systematic and ' strategic ' way of using research in this context. Although there is a commonallty of direction, the configurations of actors behind modern innovation strategies show marked differences. The particular role played by the labor market parties in Norway is not found in exactly this form anywhere else: the labor market parties almost always participate in lnltiatlves to promote development and innovation, but the leading role of the Norwegian parties has unique elements. To some extent this role is due to historical condi­ tions, to some extent to the point that there are at the moment no other actors taking overall responsibility in the field. There is a history of public initiatives but

1 14

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

these Initiatives have faded away. To what extent the Norwegian pattern with the social partners In the driver' s seat Is a major advantage compared to having, say, a ministry (as In Finland) , a government agency (as In France) , (regional) devel­ opment agencies (as In Emllla-Romagna) Is not a question that can easily be answered. From a research perspective lt can be said that for research to operate efficiently. some other society level actor or group of actors must be available as partners - If research Is to perform all tasks pertaining to development efforts of potential national significance, research will clearly be overburdened and not very efficiently utilized. The public vacuum In Norway has also appeared for other reasons: not being a member of the European Community. Norway does not participate In the efforts which the European structural funds support. These funds are used In different ways In the member countries. but they generally have some Impacts on some of the fields Involved In ED 2000, particularly regional development and develop­ ment of small firms. This means that some of the ' nelghborlng activities· found In many other European countries are absent and more functions have to be taken care of by an effort like ED 2000 . On the other hand: ED 2000 has avoided the co-ordlnatlon problems Inherent In working alongside other actors and In particular actors that are much larger.

PART Ill

The Development and Char acteristics of the Modules

Introduction As part of the process of learnJng from ED 2000, the modules were asked to evaluate themselves, covering the goals or alms that underlay the establishment of the module: what enterprises that had been recruited; how the co-operation had evolved; the degree of success that was achieved; and the module 's own views of Its own performance. Finally. the groups were asked to reflect on future pro­ grams: what should be retained from ED 2000 and what should be done differ­ ently. These themes were Intended to guide the report. not to function as questions In a strict and narrow sense. These reports are presented below. on the whole as they were given to the bodies of ED 2000. Some editing has been done, mostly to make the reports fit Into the context of this volume rather than to change form or content. The reason Is that style of writing Is an Integral part of a research process. In a program like ED 2000, with a number of different research groups. differences In style are part of the picture presented by the program: efforts to learn from the program must accept these differences as given rather than attempt to get rid of them through tight Instructions or heavy editing. There are further differences: while some of the contrlbutlons focus on the enterprise level. other focus on the network level. This reflects genuine differ­ ences In perception of ' the unit of change' . Some spend a relatively large amount of space on presentlng factual events while others use more space for reflections, and so on. Again, we are talking about differences that are well known In the research community: differences that contribute to enrichment and variation. The main purpose of the following chapters Is to go beyond and In a sense ' below' the benchmarklng report to come closer to the ' operatlonals' of the program. WhJle not being able to follow the modules Into detail. there emerge pictures of what kinds of challenges they have been facing and what kinds of steps they have taken to grapple with these challenges. It Is these realities that we

1 16

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

need to understand If we are to create fruitful Innovation strategies. Since the reports did not provide space for · full studies ' they did not provide space for documentation of claims, or statements. When something Is saJd to have been successful , this Is not documented In the following reports. It must, how­ ever. be born In mind that the benchmarklng report gave a picture of the overall advances of the program (Chapter 3) and. even though thJs picture cannot automatically be applied to each of the modules. there Is nothing to Indicate radical differences between the modules In this respect. In the light of the benchmarklng report, the researchers can. In principle. be taken at their word. The editors have added some comments at the end of each module presenta­ tion. These are called ' highlights ' since their purpose Is not to raise Issues, provide replies to critical comments on the program, or anything similar. but to point out and emphasize those elements In the module reports which have been assigned special emphasis In the editors· Interpretations of program experiences, In the last chapter In particular.

Chapter 7

The Rogaland Module Kcire Hansen and Tor Claussen

Overview Rogaland Is a region In the southern part of the west coast of Norway with Stavanger as Its regional capital. The ED 2000 module was based In the Rogaland Research Foundation (RF) . closely related to the Rogaland University College. The region Is the center of Norwegian offshore-related activities, with major units from all the major offshore operators, Including several head offices, such as for the Norwegian state-owned Statoll. RF Is an Independent research Institute, concentrating on petroleum research. environmental research and public and private sector development. The RF business concept Is to contribute to custom­ ers ' asset growth as well as growth In the community at large through goal­ oriented. cost -efficient research and research based activities. The Rogaland module was Jointly financed by ED 2000 and the Work Environment Fund of the Confederation of Business and Industry. The module contains four projects. each directed by Its own project manager. Three of the projects are directly linked to three networks: IFS, TESA and SYNERGI. All three networks existed prior to ED 2000.

The Industry Network in the Region of Sunnhordland (IFS) Thirteen enterprises form the IFS network, representing approximately 5000 employees. Most of them are In manufacturing and their main markets are offshore. shipbuilding and alumlnum smelting plants. They vary In size from 1 2 to 1 800 employees. Their participation In ED 2000 has varied: seven of the enterprises committed themselves as core enterprises. participating In close and reciprocal commitment to the accomplishment of a substantial development process under the agreement on development. together with researchers from The

1 18

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

Rogaland Research Foundation. The remainder of the enterprises participated In conferences and seminars arranged by the project, both as speakers and as ordinary participants.

The TESA Network The TESA network was founded In 1 957, and Is the oldest formal network In Norway - and probably one of the oldest networks In Europe. The founders of the network were five of the then leading Industrial firms In the region. The network now comprises 1 3 companies In different Industries. The number of employees In the companies varies from 60 to 800, and total turnover Is about NOK 4 billion (activities outside Rogaland not Included) . Export share varies from 0 to 99%. Over the years, several of the member companies have changed from being family owned local companies to multinational enterprises - either Included In larger corporatlons like ABB or themselves becoming controlling headquarters of Industrial groups like Kverneland ASA (agricultural machinery) and Laerdal Medical (medical technology) .

The SYNERGI Network The SYNERGI network. established In 1 992/93 as a cross-company collabora­ tion between three oil companies (Statoll. Hydro and Saga Petroleum) and two contractors (Smedvlg and Aker) . address experience transfer In safety manage­ ment In the Norwegian offshore Industry. The use of accident and near-miss Information to reduce future accident risk Is an Important element In modem safety management. The purpose of the SYNERGI project has been to focus on Inter-organizational experience transfer In order to extend the learning process beyond the traditional in-house systems. The offshore Industry Is vitally Impor­ tant to the Norwegian economy. and the SYNERGI network comprises some of the major enterprises In this sector (the total number of employees In the partici­ pating enterprises Is about 1 00,000) .

Co-operation Between the Networks The fourth proJect, consisting of Joint activities across the three networks, has had Its own proJect manager. It Includes such actlvltles as publishing, seminars, theory and model development. doctoral theses, etc. A total of 30-35 enterprises In the three networks have been Involved In the module, most of them on a long-

THE ROGALAND MODULE

1 19

term basis. The research group has comprised 1 2- 1 4 researchers, stx of them forming the core group. including three doctoral students.

Goals The overall goal of the module has been related to the question of how Interna­ tional management concepts may be Integrated with Scandlnavlan working life traditions ln ways that can contribute to the further development of workplace democracy and an Improved work environment. and at the same time Increased competitiveness and job security among the participating enterprises. Attaining this goal presupposes a process where International management concepts are evaluated. with the aJm of extracting elements that it would be worthwhJle Introducing to the networks and enterprises. The Implementation of these ele­ ments would have to be done ln accordance with the partlclpative principles expressed ln labor law and collective agreements. Two main objectives, each with several sub-objectives. were derived from the overall goal: First, lnltlating development processes ln the participating enterprises based on union management co-operation, Implying: - Establishing new arenas for co-operation between management and employ­ ees. - Initiating projects and processes Intended to Involve the employees through direct and indirect participation. - Creating a culture ln favor and with an understanding of continuous Improve­ ment ln the organization as a whole. - A variety of Improvement projects and more or less structured programs should be Introduced to create experience with different ways of working with development. Second. building of co-operative structures ln and between the different enter­ prises and networks. Implying: - Strengthening the ties between the participating enterprises through Increased co-operation. - Developing new arenas for co-operation between enterprises and among the social partners at network level. The specific approaches to each of the networks reflect both slmllarlties and differences among the three networks: - Lifetime varying from more than 40 years (fESA) to the relatively new networks SYNERGI and IFS (6-8 years) . - One network, IFS , has one dominant actor (hierarchical network) . the others are more homogenous (horizontal networks) .

1 20

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

- Two of the networks have a strong regional basis, the third is operating nationwide as well as at an International level (SYNERGI) . - Two of the networks have common strategies, projects and processes directed towards enterprise development in general while the third is aimed at sharing Information using IT within a defined subject area (accident prevention) . At network level. the overall objective of the IFS network was to stimulate the development of regional industry and to improve on the advantages of co­ operation for the participating enterprises. In line with this objective, ED 2000 was to contribute by Improving the network' s ability to promote business devel­ opment In the region and In the participating enterprises. An Important objective of TESA was to revive the network as a tool for upgrading competitiveness In the member enterprises. Earlier. the main focus had been on technological projects, while the members of the network now wanted to focus more on areas like business development, strategy. management, organiza­ tion development. and work environment. The shift In focus - and the objective of revitalization - was expected to result In changes In the network Itself, both In terms of organization and activities. In the SYNERGI network the overall goal was to reduce the frequency and cost of accidents within the Norwegian offshore Industry. More specifically. the objective of the network was to create a homogeneous reporting of accidents I Incidents to support and Improve the companies· loss prevention management, In particular through Improving on the potential for learning through comparing accidents I near accidents. Mai n activities Include transfer of experience related to accident prevention together with standardization and Improved comparability In the way In which accidents and near-accidents are reported and described. At enterprise level, the main long term goal In the IFS network was to reach a state where a culture and practice for continuous Improvement was fully Implemented In all the enterprises, and In accordance with business visions. goals, values and strategies. The effort of Integrating development tasks Into the manu­ facturing organization and the Integration of direct and Indirect employee partici­ pation In a comprehensive system which covers and links the different levels of the enterprise has been given high priority. The objectives of the Individual enterprises In TESA were to Increase the ability to create Integrated business development and to Implement a procedure for the Introduction and evaluation of management concepts. This was expected to Increase the companies' ability to adapt to changes In the environment. Devel­ opment and use of models for business development through co-operative struc­ tures as well as Involvement of larger groups of employees were Important goals. Even If not clearly formulated, there were also underlying goals In each of the participating enterprises In the SYNERGI network. A common denominator for these goals was the development and Implementation of a computer-based

THE ROGALAND MODULE

121

tool for recording accidents and incidents internally in each enterprise. The main research objective was divided in two parts: Generate knowledge through the active partidpation and observation in the development processes in the networks and enterprises. Disseminate this knowledge to a broad target group. This means that the researchers should gain increased knowledge about ways to ensure the optimum integration of the best among international management concepts with Norwegian traditions of workplace democracy. employee partici­ pation and health and safety management. Furthermore, increased knowledge was to be gained concerning ways to promote business development through regional coalitions and network co-operation between large enterprises. SMEs, R&D and the social partners. In TESA there was an additional focus on defining activities necessary to develop TESA as a learning network: the systems, struc­ tures and arenas necessary for reviving the network: and opportunities for and barriers to change. The research objectives in SYNERGI were to contribute to the fulfilment of the goals of the SYNERGI collaboration, and to evaluate the effects of SYNERGI on the accident prevention work in the industry in general. Impor­ tant research issues were defined as psychological and organizational factors of importance to safety information systems. new approaches in using experience data in safety management, and networks and experience transfer.

Assessing the Degree of Success The next question is how the attainment of the goals and objectives laid down in the Rogaland module can be evaluated and what criteria should be applied in this kind of self-assessment. Starting with the overall objective of the module. one main criterion could be that the participating enterprises have improved their competitiveness interna­ tionally, as measured by such criteria as market share and profitability. However, there are difficulties with this type of criteria and measurement. For most of the enterprises ED 2000 represents only a part of the total development. This means that there is seldom a direct and unequivocal relationship between measures such as were introduced through ED 2000 and the overall performance of the enter­ prise. Second. it is obvious that changes in market conditions. trade cycles and general economic trends are of major importance when explaining short-term effects on competitiveness. The RF module has tried to cope with these challenges in several ways. In the initial stage of the program there was a comprehensive mapping of all the participating enterprises in both TESA and IFS. The aim was to collect both quantitative and qualitative data, making it possible for the researchers to picture

1 22

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

the state of affairs in each enterprise and network. In this process, the term ' Benchmarking the Scandinavian way' was coined to illustrate that the data collection, in additlon to traditional areas for benchmarking. also included indica­ tors such as degree of work place democracy. direct participatlon, work environ­ ment, degree and use of network relatlons. etc. A simJlar collection of data is presently being completed. but with a much more narrow focus. We now concen­ trate on matters directly linked to concrete interventions, omittlng most of the general indicators. This type of procedure is intended to make it possible to hold these findings up against defined goals and objectives at module. network and enterprise level. Since the data collection is not yet complete, the self-assessment in the next section is based on other types of available data. Because of the way the module has been organized. the criteria used in our self assessment relate primarily to each of the networks separately. In the IFS network, the main criterion is that the project has contributed to the development of new means. methods, ways of working. strategies and organiza­ tional infrastructures in a way that promotes the Norwegian traditions of indus­ trial democracy and organizational work environment as well as productlvity. The degree of network-revival is a main criterion in TESA. A way to measure this is by comparing the number of arenas for co-operation as well as the level of activity within the various arenas, with similar data from the mid- 1 990s. In this context project performance as well as degree of satisfactlon with the contributions from the research group are important issues. The overall and specific objectives of the SYNERGI network have been well defined. Thus, the attainment of these goals forms an unequivocal basis for assessing the success of SYNERGI. On the network I enterprise level. other relevant success criteria for SYNERGI are the rate of application of the SYNERGI products (standardized corporate databases and central database) . and the amount of knowledge about the SYNERGI project I network in the industry as a whole. On the research level. the primary goal is to generate knowledge. It is difficult. however. to find meaningful criteria for assessing the extent to which such a goal has been achieved. Instead, the focus turns to the dissemination process: do the actlvities of the module generate processes of communication and flows of information and discourses among broader groups of actors that can, with some degree of assurance, be linked to the activities of the research group?

A Critical Self-assessment The objectives of the module, as well as of ED 2000 as a whole, are mainly qualitative and broadly defined . Measuring success is therefore regarded as a general and major challenge. The reader should also bear in mind that during the

THE ROGALAND MODULE

1 23

accompllshment of a long-term program llke ED 2000, changes and adjustments of focus will be a normal occurrence. These changes may. ln turn. have conse­ quences for the criteria that are as Important for the measurement of success. The researchers encountered substantial skepticlsm at the beginning of the project. Some of the companies questioned the value of co-operating with re­ searchers. The first - Imperative - success criterion was therefore to demon­ strate the value of co-operating with RF. Successful building of personal relations and successful projects ln the Individual enterprises formed the basis for co­ operation between the networks and RF. An Infrastructure for long term co­ operation between Industry and a research Institute may prove to be the most Important long term result of the RF module. The co-operation now occurs on a day-to-day level. resulting ln a series of new projects, some of them being financed by Individual enterprises, with public funding financing most of them. Economically. the new projects generated with a basis ln the ED 2000 module now represent a volume of around NOK 1 2- 1 3 million. This ls seen as an Important Indicator of success regarding co-operation between research and enterprises. The potential for extending the basis of co-operation by bringing new subjects Into these coalltions ls regarded as good. and plans for this type of expansion are presented ln the last section of this report. In accordance with the organizational structure of the RF module, Its assess­ ment will be completed by an evaluation of each of the four projects. The IFS Network

In accordance with the objectives of the IFS project, ED 2000 has developed a local ' concept ' for continuous Improvement, Integrating Important elements from quality management. business process re-engineering. health and safety manage­ ment and Norwegian traditions of Industrial democracy and employee participa­ tion. Important elements of this concept and corresponding new means, methods, ways of work and organizational Infrastructure have been Implemented ln all the companies. In the course of the project we have succeeded ln building a relatively stable local development coalltion. In addition to these general achievements and ln accordance with the objec­ tives, the IFS project has contributed to a fundamental change ln attitudes. both among managers and the shop stewards ln most of the companies, recognizing the Importance of employer - employee co-operation. New arenas and ways of co­ operation and employee participation have been establlshed. both at different levels Inside the Individual enterprise and ln the region. The degree of direct and Indirect employee partJclpatlon ln business development has Increased. and these two forms of employee partlclpatJon have had a mutually reinforcing effect on each other. The practical improvement projects that have been carried out as part

1 24

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

of the Improvement process have had positive effects on both productivity and work environment. There has also been a growing awareness of the close relation between operatlonal problems and work environment. Operational improvements very often solve work environment problems at the same time. In summary: the IFS project has succeeded In many ways. but there are still a lot of challenges to be met. Middle and first llne managers are one. In the lnltlal phase. the project had Its main focus on the training and the roles of top managers, shop stewards and facllltators. In line with quallty movement methodology and due to scarce resources we hoped that the participants would be able to spread the ' message' to the rest of their organizations and organize for continuous Improve­ ment with little assistance from the researchers. This was a mistake. Middle and first llne managers In general have shown llttle Interest In the Improvement process. The result has been delays and little support for direct employee partici­ pation at the shop floor level. The project Is now In the process of developing specific roles for middle and first line managers In the Improvement process . Prellmtnary results from some of the enterprises seem promising. Another chal­ lenge deals with the orientation of the Improvement process. Initial focus has been on Internal relatlonshlps and arenas while marketing. sales, customers and the development of new products have been given less attention. In periods when the market or sales have failed, top managers have had to use most of their time and resources on these matters. with a corresponding decline In the focus on Internal aspects of the Improvement process. It Is a challenge to widen the scope of the process to cover these Important. external matters. Especially challenging Is to consider how employer - employee co-operatlon on these matters may be Improved. The TESA Network

The TESA project has been through all possible phases In a project: enthusiasm, resistance, despair, redefinition of tasks. renewed faith, positive response from Important actors. acceptance. trust from companies and network secretariat. and then the formation of a basis for long-term co-operatlon. If the ED 2000 program had been a 1 -2 year effort, the TESA project would most likely have been a failure. As of today. the model of co-operation outllned In the objectives has been defined and further developed. New cross-functional arenas have been estab­ llshed and the amount of activity has Increased substantially. A forum for manag­ ers focusing on strategic Issues has been establlshed and Is functioning well. A cross-functional and cross-level forum for sharing of experiences has been estab­ llshed and tested. RF also proposes to extend the network to formally include first llne managers and shop stewards. This has not been Implemented yet, but these groups are participants In specific projects.

THE ROGALAND MODULE

1 25

The 'TESA model ' is constantly being developed in close co-operation with the researchers at RF. The network is today more focused on areas like compe­ tence development, management, strategy and organization development. But the economic basis for TESA - cost reductions through mutual agreements with suppliers - is stlll a very important part of the co-operation. The focus on new management concepts of potential usefulness to the enterprises has been less intense than was originally planned. Following the initlal mapping of the individual member companies, the idea was to introduce new concepts that could provide new ideas and energies for new development. Since the concepts had to come from outside they were, however, not supported by local cases. It turned out that the persuasive power of such unsupported concepts was limited and the project plan had to be changed. This change implied a turn towards the local cases and sttuatlons and a discourse on what ideas, concepts and experiences could be of particular relevance to dealing with these given situations. In this way, concepts more representing a practical mix of local challenges and general trends have emerged, such as · core competence ' and ' concepts for competence development' , and the main focus is on modes of work and other · practical' matters. Has the use of conceptually managed development improved in the member enterprises? Answering this question is difficult and the reason is simple: the individual members of TESA have no tradition of concept-driven management. in the sense of building enterprise strategies ' around ' specific words or groups of words, such as ' total quality management' . ' business process re-engineering' . or whatever. As such. concepts are of marginal interest to them. However. insofar as the various concepts point at certain practical steps that can be taken, interest grows, and several of the enterprises now use new work methods. are co­ operating better internally, or have changed strategy as a result of co-operating with RF through ED 2000. TESA is functioning as a ' learning network' . in the sense that various concepts are discussed, the content evaluated and transformed into operational work methods. and finally diffused among the members. Still. there is potential to improve the link between projects at enterprise and network level. This will be the main focus for ED 2000 in the remaining program period. Finally. important changes. not under the control of the project. have also influenced the degree of success . For instance. the TESA secretariat moved and was located in the same building as RF. resulting in close, day-to-day co­ operation. It is also worth mentioning that, during the program period, there have been four different project mangers in the TESA project. Two of the managers now have leading positions in enterprises that are members of the TESA network. If viewed as knowledge transfer. these moves might be regarded as an indicator of success. On the other hand, frequent replacements of managers have influenced the stability and operation of the project.

1 26

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

The SYNERGI Network

At the network level, SYNERGI has led to an intense focus on the regtstratlon of accidents I incidents, and to a considerable increase in the number of reported incidents. The number of enterprises using SYNERGI as a computer-based tool for recording accidents I incidents is considerable, extending beyond the tnttlal network group and across several industries. SYNERGI has created a new standard of advanced reporting of accidents / incidents. and acquaintance with SYNERGI in the offshore industry and other industries is high. SYNERGI has to some extent created a standardized I harmonized reporting practice in the offshore industry, and even other industries, but the need for company specific solutions and flexibility has Implied a pressure towards diversification as well. Extensive and bureaucratic handling I analysts of reported incidents has also shown the need for cost-benefit assessments related to the SYNERGI system. In addition, the initial objective of supporting experience transfer related to loss preventive measures has played a less distinctive role in the network than had been antici­ pated. According to the program objectlve of focusing extensively on worker partlctpation in the different network initiatives. the SYNERGI network has Implied collaboration with participants selected by the safety professionals ln each enterprise. Worker participation has been limited to the initial mapping phases.

Research Activities In accordance with the research objectives of the RF module and the criteria stated in the previous section. the assessment of the research activities can be accomplished by looking at the total dissemination of knowledge as a major indicator. Research dissemination has been given a high priority in the RF module. We have organized internal seminars at which the researchers have tdentlfted specific goals and target groups for the dissemination process. All dtstrtbutlon of research has been registered and categorized in a common catalogue for the whole module. By now this catalogue includes a total of 1 27 units. In Table 4 we have distributed these units among different categories and related them to the three target groups identified. For each category a total number of units are given and then divided into the most relevant target group.

1 27

THE ROGALAND MODULE Table 4. Publications from Rogaland Research related to ED 2000.

Target group/ Dissemination

Enterprises

Scientific publications (articles. papers. etc.) Units: 1 2 Reports and working papers published by RF . Units: 4 1 Books and book chapters. Units: 5

Popular science (articles. chronicles. etc.) Units: 1 7 Seminar and conference presentations. Units: 54 Sundries Units: 8 Total: 1 2 7

Public authorities. labour-marked parties. consultants

The research community

1

3

8

23

5

13

1 4 12

5

14

1

29

4

2

2

55

16

56

This table represents a quantatlve picture of the dissemination of the research. It Illustrates that the research from the RF module has been broadly distributed, with a substantial propagation towards each of the three target groups. In this sense one could conclude that the research objectives have been achieved. Nevertheless, this type of quantification does not represent an adequate basis for conclusions regarding the quality of the research contributions. In this respect. it Is obvious that In some periods the quality of research has suffered due to an extensive focus on Intervening activities In the networks and enterprises. It Is also clear that most of the units listed above do not represent a standard of quality above normal. Furthermore. some of the reports and working papers have the primary function of documenting activities In preference to discussing and analyztng them In a more scientific way. Nonetheless , we feel comfortable with the total picture of the research dissemination. It Is a fact that the researchers have received a large number of positive responses from all three target groups. There has also been an Increasing demand and Interest from the target groups regarding the work carri ed out In the RF module. As a consequence. researchers from the module have been Invited to gtve speeches at relevant seminars, resulting In the establishment of new relations and projects. This type of demand might be Interpreted as an Indicator of successful research dissemination.

1 28

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

When assessing the research accomplished In the RF module the reader should also bear In mind that a considerable number of publications are planned for distribution during the remainder of the program period. Two doctoral works are especially Important, representing major research contributions from the module. A book will be also published. excerpting central parts of the research carried out In the three networks. Finally. we want to stress the difficulties associated with a separate assess­ ment of research activities In Isolation from the rest of the work that has been accomplished In the module. An assessment of the research activities within a framework based on actlon research can only be Justified by linking lt to the assessment of the development process Itself. This means that the discussions and statements regarding the three networks In this section are regarded as Important parts of the assessment of the research activities as a whole.

Module Achievements vs. Program Objectives Even If the RF module has Its own overall objectives, as presented above, the design of the module and the activities have been carried out In order to achieve the program 's objective. By comparing the six partial goals from the Program memorandum we can assess how these objectives have been met. Due to the difference In the three networks, the first goal - the establish­ ment or furtherance of development organization In the participating companies - has been met to a varying degree In the participating enterprises. In the IFS and TESA networks, each participating enterprise has been through several stages ln developing such an organization. Some of them have succeeded quite well. For SYNERGI. the program has provided the enterprises with the tools for organlzlng a learning process about accident prevention. With respect to the second goal - establishment or furtherance of Inter­ enterprise networks for development work - the RF module has been successful. We started with three networks. During the program these networks have been further developed as a development tool In Itself and a facllltator for common activities. A new research program having been developed among IFS and TESA with RF as a facllltator can be seen as confirmation of this. The main focus In the RF module has been the question of how International management concepts may be Integrated with the Scandlnavlan working life tradition. This question governs our research activities and addresses the third goal In the program. In our projects we have been able to establJsh concepts and frameworks for evaluating and facilitating patterns of organization as well as for making comparisons between Norwegian enterprises and the forerunners of International development.

THE ROGALAND MODULE

1 29

The best example of fulfilling the fourth goal has been within the IFS network with Aker Stord as the central node. As a major actor this offshore yard has been at the cutting edge ln the industry, generally speaking. By taking a leading role as educator ln the network. Aker has been a facllitator for new features ln productivity thinking among the others. The fifth goal has been Incorporated ln the module by the Joint funding from, and co-operation with, the Work Environment Fund of the Confederation of Business and Industry. Their main Interest has been a further development of business concepts which can be connected to development ln work environment, co-operation and motivation. The Work Environment Fund has funded a separate evaluation project ln order to document the positive results of this kind of Integration.

Future Program Design: Some Suggestlom In -

this context we will emphasize: Overall focus of the module. Some organizational aspects. Collaboratlons with industry and industrial networks. Type of industry Involved. Researchers and research Involved. Type of research done. Projects, Improvements. results. etc. Financing and economic resources available.

Overall Focus of the Module

The maJn focus of the module. ln accordance with the program. has been on enterprise development relating to both lndlvldual enterprises and networks of collaboratlng enterprises. In addltlon. the program has focused on participatory aspects. both direct and indirect, ln the different developmental processes lnltl­ ated by the module. Industrial democracy. management and organizational as­ pects have been major topics. playing a stgnlflcant role ln the developmental processes. Improvement projects and research actlvltles ln the module. The overall regional, national and International economic environment was one of three main themes outlined lnJtlally ln the project proposal of the module. This theme has been given less attention. Further themes have been identified during the project period. Inside the enterprises other actors. middle managers as well as technical and technological aspects of enterprise development have played a minor role ln the module actlvltles. An exception ls a recent project on middle managers ln one of the networks.

1 30

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

Expanding the scope of the program could mean losing focus and important advantages related to the demarcation of the program. On the other hand, involv­ ing new actors (middle managers) could broaden the perspective of the program without blurring its maJor profile. Incorporating more strongly regional and national preconditions could contribute fruitfully to the program ' s future profile. This incorporation of overall preconditions has to be handled with caution - to avoid destroying the already well-established profile of the program. One maJor topic that could be incorporated into the program relates to competence building and knowledge acquisition. Formal, generalized educa­ tional institutions, as well as informal network relations and company specific arenas could be utilized to fulfil such objectives. Networks of collaborating enterprises closely linked with research institutions, social partners. local as well as national educational institutions, local authorities and politicians, could form regional developmental coalitions. The formation of regional development coali­ tions could be the nucleus of more institutionalized efforts, which together with future research programs could constitute a driving force for innovative efforts to create competitiveness in an ever-changing economic environment. This will be dealt with more closely when the future research prospects are outlined below. Some Organizational Aspects

ED 2000 has been organized into modules. The modules had a strong regional origin. This is speciflcally important when mechanical industry and offshore­ related industry are strongly focused upon in the program. This regional base is less obvious if a shift in focus takes place and the service industry. specifically the governmental branch, were to occupy a major place in the future. A greater emphasis on governmental as well as the private service industry, on the other hand, could imply a weakened role for the offshore-related industry, which still, for many years to come. will play a maJor role as a driving force in the Norwegian economy. Collaborations with Industry and Industrial Networks

A close relationship has been developed between research and industry / indus­ trial networks in ED 2000. Expanding this relationship to form development coalitions involving new areas of enterprise development, such as learning and knowledge acquisition, could be a maJor objective for the future. Efforts to expand this relation could secure the continuation of the important relations between research and industry I networks established during the course of the program.

THE ROGALAND MODULE

131

Type of Industry Involved

The maJority of Industry Involved has been the mechanical and process indus­ tries. This Is speclflcally true of the module at RF. Close relations to the offshore Industry and big oil companies have been an advantage In relation to the transfer of competence from the oil companies and their suppliers to other onshore Industry. On the other hand. this has narrowed diversity and given a possible bias In the sample of partners, which could hamper the spread and potential relevance of the program. The balance between different types of Industries needs to be considered In future Initiatives. Mechanical and process Industries. both offshore and onshore. should still occupy a position at the very heart of further Initiatives, but they should be widened to Include more Industries and branches. Researchers and Research Involved

Action research conducted by social scientists has played a maJor role In EO 2000. This Is still an Important approach. which has been balanced with other types of applied and basic research, consultancy work, and activities executed by the participating industries themselves as part of their dally operations. There has been a constant threat of conflict between research and development I consul­ tancy work related more directly to dally operations. A stable, long-tenn financ­ Ing of research Is a necessary precondition for research to contribute creatively to enterprise development and to avoid researchers simply competing with profes­ sional consultants supplying commissioned products of little Importance to future competitiveness for Its partners. Type of Research

The creation of development processes, Improvement projects and activities In close co-operation with the social partners and their Interests has played a maJor role In EO 2000. Applied and basic research has been conducted and closely linked to more consultancy-oriented type of work. Consultancy-type work and activities closely linked to dally operations have formed an Input to applied and basic research actlvltles. and vice versa. This mutual reinforcement between different types of research and development activities should be continued and enhanced. One possible way of continuing and enhancing this profile of the program In the future could be to strengthen the long-tenn perspective on basic and applied research activities ( 1 0 years?) . Together with a diversity of more limited program activities (2-5 years?) with a specific focus covering ongoing identified needs of research In different areas. this could contribute to a profitable balance In the long tenn.

1 32

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

Financing and Economic Resources The module at Rogaland Research has had resources avallable to enable the Institute to conduct a variety of development processes and activities In close collaboration with three Industrial networks. It Is Important that these resources are made avallable to continue this profitable research and development work. Additional resources will be needed to expand these actlvlties Into new areas and to spread already acquired results to other Industries and businesses.

Summary of Results and Experiences Among the achievements can be counted: - Strong relations have been developed with Industry. social partners, local and regional government and other actors, national partners. other research Insti­ tutes and researchers. Development processes, Improvement projects and activltles have been lnltl­ ated and accomplished In the three networks. Follow up research on the different activltles has been accomplished. A multitude of different research and development activities have emerged, Including a number of new projects and actlvltles. Two Ph.D. theses based on research within ED 2000 wlll be completed In 1 999. Some future challenges can be listed as follows: - Utilizing existing data for future analysis and sclentlfic reporting. An urgent need Is to acquire financial support for actlvitles that can fully utilize the vast amount of data gathered during the participation In ED 2000. Doctoral theses can be an Important part of such analysis and scientific reporting. Continuation and expansion of today· s relations and development research. Identifying and Initiating new fields of research closely related to the ongoing activities. One such area could be learning. education and knowledge distribu­ tion In enterprise development. Up to the present the development of educa­ tional and knowledge distributing devices has been a less striking aspect of ED 2000. The social partners, Industry and politlclans have recently given this field major attention. Some Important questions to take Into consideration In the near future can be listed as follows: - What can be done to combine development and structuring of new knowledge In developmental actlon research with knowledge diffusion devices such as the educational system, the activities of the labor market parties, local and natlonal knowledge brokers, and the llke?

THE ROGALAND MODULE -

1 33

How could regional and local ' Incubators' be established? How could regional and national factors be taken Into consideration ln enterprise development without losing the overall focus of the program?

Editorial Highlights If a report l ike this Is seen In the light of the traditional 'sclentlflc Imperatives ' , there seems to be ' something lacking' : what 'really came out of it' - preferably In terms of a set of criteria characterizing a successful network: be 1t on the West coast of Norway or In general. In a sense, what Is presented can be seen as preliminaries. relating to how to get Into contact with enterprises, creating devel­ opment arenas, Involving actors. clarifying how to mix problems. experiences and concepts. and so on. All this, 1t can be argued, must. however, lead somewhere: to a clarified picture of · something ' . But must it? What If we see such events and occurrences as Indicated above not as steps to something else but as 'the product '? Does such a product have any meaning? What sort of 'product ' Is lt? Although Indicating that Ideas were presented, concepts Introduced and so on, practically all of the story recounted above relates to relationships. It Indicates what kind of challenges emerge In the beginning of the process: lack of credibility of the researchers within the enterprises, skeptlclsm and the like. which needs to be overcome, to be successively replaced by co-operation based on mutual trust. It tells how research, In the beginning. placed much emphasis on Introducing 'concepts ' which are actually more or less the same as general schools of thought on how to Improve on enterprise performance, such as total quality management and business process re-engineering. It tells, furthermore. about the difficulties this move encountered, because 1t was seen. by the local actors, as not being backed by locally accessible knowledge sources. A new shift emerged, bringing local challenges and experiences Into the foreground, and locating the portfolio of wisdom from the International management literature In a position of supportive resource rather than leading authority: something of potential value. according to what local needs and circumstances could be said to demand. We can also see that by ' local ' we should not understand the self-understanding of people hidden In some Norwegian fJords who have hardly received an Impulse from outside since the VIking period. All the enterprises and networks are heavily Involved In the processes of 'globallzatlon' ; some of them - such as the SYNERGI members ­ even In leading roles. · Local · does not mean Isolated: 1t means starting with oneself and one 's own sltuatlon as lt Is at a given point In time. Of course, one does not neglect seeing that this situation Is ln many ways Influenced by global actors and trends. In turning from a main focus on · concepts ' to a main focus on practical problem solving. the module reports that the 'concepts ' were brought together

1 34

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

Into a · combined package· , that Is: made subject to less dlfferentlatlon. At the same time. the practical situations were made subject to more differentiation: the networks were different and faced different challenges, each enterprise within each network had to be approached Individually. This Is a very pointed example of re-balancing the theory - practice relationship which tends to occur when research enters a practical context. But the · relevant process ' has not come to an end with the establishment of mutual trust and confidence and a turn to the locally given. The actor constella­ tions and development measures open to them become a new set of major concerns. The TESA co-operation. for Instance. had emerged a long time ago, but In order to serve new development needs it had to be re-vitalized. which Is no simple process to achieve. IFS was In a sense launched as a modern business­ oriented network for coordinating efforts along joint value generation chains. but lacked the element of broad partlclpatlon from all concerned needed to achieve the levels of Individual motivation and performance associated with a more full­ blown success. The story Indicates that at this point there Is a need for new arenas and for reconstructing old ones: co-operation committees can need new agendas, new project groups will have to be created, enterprise wide development confer­ ences can sometimes be needed, and much more. The real complexity can be extremely high and the difference between success and stagnation will often hang on the ability of the researchers to help the enterprises launch and manage a differentiated and finely tuned network of activities where not only each separate effort can need sophisticated knowledge to really be brought to function but where even greater challenges emerge ln creatlng the requisite connectedness between them. In llne with this, the point Is made that perhaps the most Important outcome of ED 2000 Is the set of relationships that has been created: between research and enterprise actors. between research and the social partners. between research groups. between enterprises, and so on. forming various development coalitions with perspectives far beyond ED 2000. The core role ass igned to relatlonshlps - or connectedness - Is emphasized by two further points: first, that a major success criterion Is the contlnued growth of the set of relationships so that it encompasses more and more actors and enterprises. Second. that even a core research criterion such as the growth ln knowledge has to be looked at from a relatlonal perspective. In assessing what the research group has learned from the partlclpatlon In ED 2000 . the report states that this must be approached by looking at what knowledge has been put Into circulation In the relationships to other actors. Rather than asking 'what do I know ' or 'what does research know' the question has to be: what does research know when seen from the point of view of Its co-operation partners. In this lies a point of extreme Importance: the point Is not primarily to ' have knowledge' but to

THE ROGALAND MODULE

1 35

have ' living knowledge ' and for knowledge to be living it has to be at play In specific social relationships. Third. future lnltlatJves should not only aim at industries not included In ED 2000 without further reasons. Among these further reasons the ' learning flow' In working life Is a core one: what enterprises and industries can most fruitfully be linked to the flows that already exist? There ls, ln other words, a whole host of products, even when no final ' network theory' Is presented or ever will be presented.

Chapter 8

The Work Research Institute Module 0yvind Pcilshaugen, Thoralf U . Qvale and Per H. Engelstad

The Work Research Institute The Work Research Institute tn Oslo was founded tn the mtd-slxtles on the basis of the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Project. which was an action research program for enterprise development carried out as a tripartite collaboration be­ tween the two main labor market parties and researchers (Chapter 5) . The Industrial Democracy Project initiated a process towards establishing a common institutional framework for support for enterprise development. For more than 30 years the Work Research Institute has been involved tn various action research programs and projects which have been carried out within or tn relation to this framework. and thereby also contributed to Its very emergence.

The Main Purposes of the Module The overall purpose of the module tn ED 2000 ts twofold: first. to enhance the competitiveness of enterprises and the · quality of working life ' of the employees tn these enterprises, tn line with the main thrust of the co-operation part of the Baste Agreement between the Confederation of Business and Industry and the Confederation of Trade Unions. In this sense, the one main purpose ts to make research contribute to work life reforms on the basis of the tnstltutional frame­ work created by the labor market parties. The second main purpose, which ts closely linked to the first, ts to enhance the capabtltty of work life research to contribute to reforms tn the way mentioned above. Thus, the other main purpose of WRI ' s module tn ED 2000 may be formulated as an ambition to Improve work life research. tn other words: contribute to a reform of work life research itself. From these overall purposes our partial objectives may be formulated as follows:

1 38

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

Research objectives

On the basis of direct collaboration between enterprises and researchers in various enterprise development projects: to create new knowledge of or insight Into how enterprise development based on the broad participation of the employ­ ees can be effectively promoted by means of a kind of local development organization in which all members of the enterprise's work organization may have some opportunity to participate In working with priorttlzed development tasks. The aim is to create new knowledge concerning the kind of development strategy, communicative means. ways of organizing the development work etc. which are most appropriate according to the local conditions of each enterprise, as well as new knowledge concerning what kinds of external conditions should be generated to support the development process of the enterprises Olke networks between enterprises: regional / natlonal lnfrastructure on different levels: research Institutions: etc.) . Objectives at the enterprise and enterprise network level

These objectives may be divided Into three parts: first. to come to tenns with the enterprtse(s) on strategy for collaboration on R&D project(s) . on Issues which are of crucial Interest to the employer and the employees of each enterprise. and which. by use of some participatory. dialogue-oriented channels may also be of Interest to other enterprises. Second. to co-operate on the practical execution of this development strategy by creatlng and making use of some kind of develop­ ment organization, and - thirdly - through this collaboration, to Increase the enterprtse (s) ' competence and ability to continue to perfonn strategically impor­ tant development work after the tennlnatlon of the collaboration with research. The objectives in respect of networks between companies are also twofold. One objective has been to explore - on a practical basis - what kind of networks might be appropriate when seen from the point of view of the enter­ prises. that is. what kind of relations. collaboration or forums should be estab­ lished between the enterprises to enhance the development work taking place in each one of them. Another objective has been to undertake studies of already exlstlng networks of enterprises. to Investigate the relationship between enter­ prise development and the surrounding infrastructure.

Criteria for and Measurement of Success The overall purpose of our actlon research is to contribute to the improvement both of working life and work life research. Both are confllctual fields. in which

THE WORK RESEARC H INSTITUTE MODULE

1 39

we intervene on the basis of a certain kind of common framework, which makes the relationship to the field a basically dialogical one. that is. one of mutuality. In order to improve the field. we also have to improve our own performance of action research, by some kind of innovatlve adjustments to the responses we more or less continually get from the field. as well as to unforeseen events and changes in general circumstances. Thus. the innovative adjustments have to be made (or created) so to speak 'on-line' . To be able to create such innovative adjustments when they are required, two conditions have to be fulfilled. ( 1 ) In addition to their knowledge. the researchers have to possess a power of Judgement which make them able to Judge wisely in any current situation. (2) In addition to the power of Judgement. the researchers have to possess a capacity of creating the innovative adjustments which the situation seems to require. Thus. two general criteria for evaluating the success of our module. may be the following: ( 1 ) an improvement in the power of judgement. regarding the ability to develop adequate responses to particular situations: (2) An in crease of the capacity to create innovative interventions in the field. in accordance with how the situation is perceived. Having launched these general criteria. two questions arise: how to judge the extent to which they have been fulfilled? Do these criteria add to the criteria listed above? These two questlons have one and the same answer. From the above reasoning. in which action research is presented as an activity which alms at having an impact on working life and work life research by means of (dialogical) interventions in fields which are continuously developing and changing in the course of the research process. it follows that the general objectives of research have to be made concrete and developed in accordance with the specific situatlon or circumstances in which they are applied. In other words. the objectives have to be made explicit on the one hand In accordance with what takes place In the practical development processes within the enterprises, and on the other hand In accordance with what takes place in the theoretlcal discourses within the research community. For these reasons it Is just through a certain kind of self-critical presentation of the action research projects as they really have taken place during the course of ED 2000 . that we shall see the extent to which the objectives at the enterprise level have successfully been reached, and in what way. By means of this presentation. In which our general ability to Judge on various situations and our general ability to respond tnnova­ tively to them will be exposed as well. it will be possible to Judge the extent to which we have succeeded in Increasing these abilities during the years of ED 2000. This critical self-presentation Is the topic of the next section. As for the research objectives, the degree of success first of all depends on the quality of the content of our research publications. In our contracts (Letters of Intent) governing R&D with the enterprises. we have agreed that the research

1 40

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

publications are written mainly for the research community (and other agents In the Infrastructure that supports enterprise development) . This means that In the Letter of Intent, the documentation of practical results is considered the responsi­ bility of the enterprise (whose commitment to practical results Is the primary one) : to document results is not the same as writing a sclentlflc publication. As regards the research community we have argued extensively that neither any particular method which precedes the text of a research publication nor any set of criteria can be established to Judge on the content of a research publication, apart from the readers· Interpretative Judgement of the content of the publication as a textual Interpretation of some topic or phenomenon (PA!shaugen 1 996b) . In this sense, each publication speaks for Itself. as lt were, which also means that the various publications will to a certain extent speak to somewhat different audiences - depending on what part of the research community discourses each publication Is In practice Intervening In. (One such obvious difference Is whether the publication Is written for a national. a Scandlnavlan, or an International audience.) For these reasons, we will give an evaluation of our research objec­ tives mainly In Section 6. on · research results ' .

Critical Self-evaluation At the start of ED 2000 In 1 995. we had already established relations with a number of enterprises. on the basis of our fanner action research programs. and we were still running a few of these R&D projects. However, 1t turned out not to be as easy as we had presumed to extend the number of enterprises within the frame of our module In ED 2000. With hindsight. there seem to have been two main reasons for this, which In a certain sense are Interrelated. and which point back towards our research strategy. From the point of view that R&D projects should provide both new theory and new practice. our ambition was to enter Into R&D projects only with those enterprises that showed a real Interest In trying to Increase added value by means of broad employee participation In development processes. In principle, there should be an occasion for all to participate. After having tried In different ways with approximately 20 enterprises using both dialogues and practical collaboration - to come to tenns with an enterprise development strategy of this kind. we had, after I � years, come to an agreement with only five enterprises, with whom we collaborated on the basis of a general agreement (Letter of Intent) . We overestimated the number of enterprises whose management would consider making use of some kind of development organization based on broad participation as a worthwhile Investment. Rather. the great maJority of them regarded broad participation as a risky option. Second. we may not have made appropriate use of the opportunities and Invitations offered to us by a certain

THE WORK RESEARC H INSTITUTE MODULE

141

number of companies. to start a collaboratlon on a more narrow basis, and from there on explore the posslbllltles for working out more extensive development strategies. In this sense. In the Initial phase. we both made some Inadequate Judgments and did not make sufficiently lnnovatlve Interventions In the situations to which we were exposed. In order to come to terms with an enterprise on development based on broad participation. on conditions which will serve the objectives of the enterprise (s) as well as those of research. a lot of time has to be Invested In working with these condltlons. to find out what they should be like, as well as to establish them. (A general characteristic of these conditions, and an example of the process of establishing them, Is to be found In Palshaugen 1 998b: 64 - 70.) In short, a lot of time has to be Invested In building sustainable relations with each enterprise. only to come Into the position of starting up a practlcal collaboration on an R&D project on enterprise development. This Investment of time and resources we have termed 'the link-up phase ' (Palshaugen 1 998b: 6 1 ) . and it Is Important to note that this Investment Is a risky one. The efforts made during the link-up phase may very well generate the result that there will be no link-up. To Illustrate, during the first two years of EO 2000, two of the enterprises which took our efforts to create sustainable relations as far as to organize and run a dialogue conference - which Is quite a time-consuming Investment - led only to the result that the enterprises decided not to enter a long-term R&D collaboration. At that time, five enterprises was considered an Inadequate number for one module. As a consequence. In the autumn of 1 996, we reorganized and expanded our module by Integrating a greater number of WRI · s researchers and thereby also Including the enterprises with which they were collaborating, mainly from within the oil and process Industries. From then on the module may be said to have been collaborating In R&D projects with two main groups of companies: a number of separate enterprises within the technology and food Industry. and a number of enterprises within the process Industry. which partly also co-operate between themselves In a network created at the Initiative from WRI. Due to these different collaboration structures we shall below give our evaluation first of the R&D collaboration for each of the enterprises In the technology and food Indus­ tries. and then present the process Industry enterprises. framed by an account of the network they have formed.

The Enterprises within the Technology and Food Industries VBK ASA Is a producer of specialized fittings for utility vehicles, such as ambulances. buses, trams. trains and ferries. There are 250 employees, generatlng an annual turnover of about NOK 300 million. VBK Is located In Horten by the Oslof)ord and exports ea. 35% of Its production. By the start-up of EO 2000 the

1 42

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

combined challenge to the R&D collaboration could be split into two parts: to VBK the superordinate challenge was to integrate the strategy for working with development tasks into their overall business strategy plan, and thereby to be able to give priority to those development tasks which at any time were considered most important from a business point of view. To WRI the primary challenge was to contribute to the generation of a development organization which on the one hand was sufficiently flexible to meet the changing nature of development tasks at different times, and on the other hand so ftnnly organized that the development work would be effective and give practical results. The foundation for coping with this combined challenge was laid in 1 995. when WRI was asked by VBK to create an approach for a participatlve process of working out VBK · s strategic business plan for the next five years. In this way we acquired very close knowledge of VBK ' s business strategy. and VBK experi­ enced that partictpative methods also might be useful in working with tasks of this kind. Thus, in the following years, developmental tasks of strategic importance were coped with through a development organization which came to be both more effective and more flexible than could have been imagined in advance. The next main development task was to undertake a re-organization of the various support functions. to integrate them directly into the value chain of the four profit centers at VBK. and the next step was (logically) to contribute to the preparations for making these profit centers into independent companies, with VBK as a holding company. All these development processes were undertaken by means of different kinds of dialogue conferences, by which project groups, development teams and so on were established to fulfil the plans made at these conferences. Put in the most general terms, the basis for this rather successful collabora­ tion was threefold : first. the management, in particular the top manager, was very conscious of the sort of content he wanted to have as an outcome of the various development processes, and he was very open minded about how to obtain the results he wanted. Also, he was actively interested in engaging both the union representatives and the union members in the development work. Second, the union was an active one. with skilled members, who were, to a great extent, eager to participate in development work. both on behalf on themselves and on behalf of the company. Third, all this afforded a number of opportunities to organize different kinds of 'tailor made ' dialogues and to make use of different communi­ cative means - opportunities we managed to cope with in innovative ways. by interventions which worked. Thus, the benefit to VBK of this R&D collaboration Is to be found in our very specific contributions on how to cope with particular strategic development tasks, which, over the course of the project. have been of quite different kinds. What is quite important Is that in the case of VBK. the investment made in

THE WORK RESEARC H INSTITUTE MODULE

1 43

establishing the necessary kind of relationships between research and the enter­ prise had already been made, and thus the pay-off of the time spent on R&D collaboration throughout the EO 2000 period has been higher. both for the enterprise and for us. The Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace project Is related to the company's product development of a new guided missile for targets at sea level. In terms of technological complexity. the missile has the nature of a small unmanned aircraft. This Implies that the technical and organizational challenges related to the devel­ opment work are exceptionally high. The final tests of the finished product are to be completed In 2004. In practice this requires a long term application of concur­ rent engineering, Involving more than 200 engineers and requiring a number of baseline updates within a total timeframe of eight years. Compared to the previous development and production of the Penguin rocket. which was very successful for KDA. the overall challenge of the New Sea-target Missile (NSM) represented a quantum leap, also In organizational terms. To the WRI module of EO 2000 this offered an opportunity to assist the company ' s efforts to Improve Us way of organizing the concurrent engineering process. with a special emphasis on broad Involvement among the participants In the development organization. This provided an opportunity to test the applicabil­ Ity and efficiency of the Dialogue Conference method In the special ' operational ' context of product development. This proved to be a professionally demanding case. one that would also be conducive to further development of the method. In 1 996. WRI used the dialogue conference to Involve some 90 members of the NSM organization to further develop the specific work procedures to be used In concurrent engineering. The relations between the line and project organization are of critical Importance In this kind of work. and so Is the network of relations among the 30 part-projects which make up the NSM project. In 1 997. when these Issues were followed up In our collaboration with the company, a specific problem of ' concurrency ' was brought to the fore. This had to do with the problem of allocating a sufficient number of competent people temporarily from the part-projects to the systems group. In order to bring this first-priority work ahead of other activities. This was successfully dealt with In two subsequent conferences for, respectively, 32 line and project managers and 46 managers of part-projects and part-part-projects. In 1 998. problems related to the Interface between the line and the project organization reappeared and were successfully dealt with In a fourth dialogue conference Involving 34 managers. directly concerned with this Interface. The general problem was that the organizational model in use was not very effective because, In the NSM case. it included only one very large project. As a result the size of the Interface had to be reduced by bringing more. If not all. of the line functions under the management team of the project.

1 44

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

So far the company has been able to meet Its basellne update requirements In terms of quallty. time and costs. The addltlonal benefits to the company were that the conferences made lt less difficult to meet some of these requirements. as illustrated by the three appllcations presented. In this case the dialogue confer­ ence method seemed particularly well suited to deallng with a broad range of ' additional concurrency problems' In a large and complex project development organization. already working with concurrent engineering. For research the new knowledge generated has been both In terms of Improving the conference meth­ odology and In clarifying the ·development organization ' concept. Fellesslakterlet (FS) Is a co-operative slaughterhouse comprising one factory In Sarpsborg and one In Oslo. The company employs a total of 600 people. the large majority of whom are production workers and members of the Food Workers' Union within the Confederation of Trade Unions. A major characteris­ tic of their working conditions Is that most of the jobs are dominated by repetltive, short -cycled and physically exhausting tasks. Tight planing and logistics In the productlon process, due to the short keeping quallty of meat products and the strong customer orientation of FS In the market, add to the pronounced work environment problems In this llne of business. A major indicator of the present sltuatlon Is the relatively high level of sick leave, due to the prevalence of physical strain and psychological stress. To deal with some of these problems the company was already engaged In a branch program under the agreement on development. In April 1 998 a collaboration project was agreed with FS In which WRI would assist the company In a comprehensive development program In order to Improve Its dally operations both In terms of productivity and working conditions (health, work environment, safety) . The baste idea was to apply the Development Organlzatlon Strategy as a · broad front ' approach. This lmplled that a great number of relatively small, but coordinated. development projects were to be lnltlated at different points and levels In the work organlzatlon. This would also provide • tdeal ' condltlons for broad partlclpatlon among the employees con­ cerned In each case. It should be noted that during the last decade the FS organization had been through the attempted lntroductlon of three different development programs, including the just In Time system from Japan. With the experiences of llmlted practical outcomes, but a lot of palnful leamlng about processes, the new manage­ ment and the union stood firmly behind the suggested partlclpative strategy. with a particular emphasis on dialogue and the broad front approach. Compared to previous ED projects, In which the Dialogue Conference method has played a dominant role In our contributions to the enterprise develop­ ment projects, the FS project required the use and development of a much broader repertoire of dialogue-based organizational measures. These include different types of Partlclpative Projects and Development Forums, In which the

THE WORK RESEARC H INSTITUTE MODULE

1 45

use of more flexible forms of organization and dialogue arenas brought the concept of ·effective participation' to the forefront. It became evident that the right timing of the parallel and sequential applications of these means would make a major difference in the rate of progress that could be achieved in the overall participative development process. both with respect to added value to the company and to work satisfaction for the employees. The expected added value of this approach to the company would be in terms of an enhanced rate of development, in particular in the medium term (two years) and longer term perspective. However, most of the available indicators suggest that FS, after less than 1 1h years, is already harvesting some of the potential benefits of the strategy chosen in terms of enhanced productivity and work satisfaction. With respect to effective use of the complementary competence between management on what. and re­ search on how, there are obvious similarities to VBK. It also appears that even ' negative learning' may have a positive effect. ELKO AS is a producer of electrical fittings such as cables, switches and the like. ELKO is located at two places - Sandvika (outside Oslo) and Amot (north of Drammen) - exports 1 0% of its production, and employs ea. 250 people. The R&D collaboration has concentrated on the combined improvement of productiv­ ity and work environment. by developing better work procedures and better forms of co-operation on the shop floor. especially the relationship between the triads of workers. group leaders and foremen. Work with participative means to reach this goal is important in two respects: first, because increased productivity is a crucial part of ELKO · s business strategy, and second. because ELKO is part of an international concern (Finnish/Danish) which has made 'continuous development work ' one of its internal benchmarking criteria. The strategy for development work at ELKO differs from the other enter­ prises we are collaborating with in that dialogue conference(s) as a vehicle for launching a kind of development organization have not been used. Instead, ELKO has organized the development work by means of a number of smaller 'development groups' composed by the three categories of employees mentioned above. in accordance with their numerical size. These groups work in parallel, and the number of groups has been extended as the enterprise has gained experi­ ence with this kind of work. Each of the groups, in addition to arranging an initial start -up seminar, has also made use of dialogue seminars with participants from their supporting departments (maintenance, stores, etc.) . In the course of this development process the work organization has been changed into a more flexible one, with a reduction in the number of levels, and the impacts on productivity as well as work environment have been positive. ELKO ' s benefit from the R&D collaboration is to be found both in the help they have received in adapting dialogue-based work methods on the level of the work groups on the shop floor, the help in anchoring this way of proceeding in the

1 46

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

business strategy as a way of working continuously with development tasks, and the help in · coaching· these development groups in the course of their work. OSRAM ASA is a producer of electric light bulbs for the retail market. In addition to a number of products for special needs. OSRAM is located in Drammen, exports ea. 1 0% of its production and has about 1 00 employees. The collaboration between OSRAM and WRI goes further back in tlme, but it was revitalized by the start-up of ED 2000. A dialogue conference with participation limited to management and shop stewards in all departments and at all levels (25 persons) in 1 996 laid the foundatlon for an enterprise development process to obtain a more flexible workforce and a reduction in productlon costs. by organiz­ ing the development work in more effectlve ways and by launching a process of competence development among the employees. Due to increased pressure on production tasks. the progress of the develop­ ment process was slower than planned. However. the enterprise · s priority of and ablllty to perform their development tasks have both improved in the course of the run. and from the management point of view. they have by and large reached their goals. The main benefit to OSRAM from the R&D collaboration is that they received help to find a way - or a work form - to start the very process of enterprise development with particlpative. dialogue based methods. from where they were gradually able to develop a work form which they found to be suitable locally. As for the participatlon of the employees, the management in a certain sense has followed a more · narrow · track than the other enterprises with which we have collaborated. From the management point of view the reason for this is no argument against broad participation, rather their principal view has been to Involve the employees (outside the shop stewards) in defined development tasks, not to involve them in the process of generating the development tasks. To some extent their strategy is due to the fact that the workers are mainly unskilled ones. but from a self-critical point of view we also have to admit that we. In this situation, were not sufficiently innovative in finding ways to cope with the dilemma of involvement in defined tasks vs. involvement in defining tasks in more pragmatic ways. OCEANOR produces and delivers advanced technological instruments and services for oceanography. The enterprise, which is located in Trondheim, ex­ ports 50% of its production and the number of employees was ea. 70 during the project period. More than half of the enterprise 's employees are engineers, and the level of competence is generally high. In some respects this has facilitated our collaboration. in particular concerning the discussions on what communicative means to apply or create for use in the development process . and concerning the employees · ability not only to participate in the dialogues, but also to establish the very frameworks within which the dialogues take place.

THE WORK RESEARC H INSTITUTE MODULE

1 47

In some periods the R&D collaboration with OCEANOR has been very intensive. Among other things. two dialogue conferences, both with the participa­ tion of more than 80% of the employees, have been organized (both in the course of two weekdays) . The first one took place in 1 995 , the second one in 1 997 , and both were in different ways concerned with the implementation of a kind of quality system which aimed at procedures for continuous quality improvements. Perhaps the most interesting challenge in this respect was that most of OCEANOR 's products were of a highly composite kind (complex oceanographic undertakings, based on contracts with national governments) which required that the very production process had to be project-organized. Though in this way very well acquainted with project-organized production processes, OCEANOR was not that experienced in project-organized development (or improvement) pro­ cesses, which in their case meant a kJnd of development organization to improve the conditions of the project -organized production processes. Thus, the benefit to OCEAN OR from our R&D collaboration was mainly to be found in our contribu­ tions on this topic, which included both theoretical perspectives and practical means. The R&D collaboration on this topic has suffered from OCEANOR ' s recur­ rent economic problems during the project period. In 1 998 the enterprise got new owners, the management group was almost totally substituted by a new one, and the R&D collaboration was terminated.

The Process Industry Group The network of enterprises we collaborate with within the process industry may be said to have started with the Norwegian Work Life Center program ( 1 988-93) . A development program (INPRO) was created through this center in collabora­ tion between a number of enterprises in the process industry and four institutes at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) . The general objective was Joint development in teaching and enterprise development with a focus on the socio-technical design and operation of processes plants. In the industry it was recognised that this was a non-issue at the university, and there was a need to do something to improve the situation in order to speed up necessary change processes in the plants. It was agreed that starting as a Ph.D. program would be the most efficient way to build up knowledge at NTNU. The section of The Confederation of Business and Industry covering this branch, together with the Offshore Workers' Union, approached the Research Council of Norway and obtained support for the initiative. The partners behind the Workltfe Center helped organize the program. Four institutes were involved, three in the technical field and one social science. based at NTNU. Nine Ph.D. candidates

1 48

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

were selected by these institutes and each was to work with a change project in a process plant. They were taught and supervised as a group by a group of 4-5 professors. The INPRO program became very successful In terms of plant changes. satisfactory Ph.D. dissertations. fruitful exchange between the nine participating enterprises. and also in terms of positive collaboration between the Institutes and the enterprises. The long term perspective, however. of developing a continuous collaborative activity at NTNU - Including teaching an M.Sc. course In process plant operations - did not materialize, largely because of the turmoil around the merger of the two universities In Trondhelm. WRI therefore undertook a new Initiative vis a vJs the same sector of Industry, Including some of the INPRO enterprises, and early In 1 998 suggested continuing the networking activities through a proposed ' Forum for New Con­ cepts for the Operations of Process Plants ' (Qvale 2000) . A steering committee composed of Industry representatives worked on the proposal and a plan was drawn up together with WRI ' s researchers. From the WRI point of view the main research Interest was linked to the issue of · diffusion' of experience between enterprises. In parallel to organizing the Forum. the Institute Is deeply Involved In development projects In several enterprises In the process Industry. and the purpose of the Forum network Is to facilitate changes In these enterprises. as well as to act as sources for experience which the others may utilize. Finally. we assumed that the group of enterprises may also Identify Joint R&D needs and find ways to deal with these together. The Forum has so far been very successful In bringing together key persons (plant level line managers, P &0 directors from corporate HQ and 1 -3 plant level managers/union leaders) from 8- 1 0 of the largest manufacturing enterprises In Norway. Two Forums have been held, each with ea. 35-40 participants, new enterprises have announced that they want to participate. the Intended network activities across the enterprises are emerging. and the exchange of experience and Inspiration on the Forum seems both Intense and effective. Top management In one of the enterprises, Norsk Hydro (the largest Indus­ trial group In Norway) , has Initiated a research project In the field of work environment and health consequences of (the methods used to promote) new, Integrated, flexible forms of working. Together with WRI a proposal for a pilot phase Is being drafted and submitted to a program on Occupational Health within the Research Council. We expect that 4-5 of the Forum enterprises will Join In. The Idea Is to utilize the Forum plants. all of which are Involved In enterprise development activities, as a natural laboratory for following changes In the health sltuatlon over relatively long periods of time. The enterprises pay an annual subscription to the Forum. and cover their own participation costs. The subscription covers WRI 's administrative costs. Input

THE WORK RESEARC H INSTITUTE MODULE

1 49

from the WRI 's long term involvement in some of the enterprises so far has been important for the Forum. Of these we mention four. Asgard Operations. This is an offshore greenfleld site design project in which WRI researchers have been involved as the main external resource for the production organization from day one. After about three years of planning, recruiting, training, design and organization of development activities, produc­ tion from one of the two offshore factltties started in May 1 999. Very innovative, radical and cost efficient socio-technical designs have been applied for the production units. This is also the largest single industrial investment project in Norwegian history, involving large amounts of new technology. and represents a breakthrough in Statotl for participative forms of management and organization. Autonomous work groups, multiskHling and extensive use of computer systems and networks are some core features of the work organization. Due to cost overruns during the construction phase. pressure for cost efficient and safe operations is very high, and all indications so far are that the company will meet the targets set. The Forum enterprises are eagerly following the development through the Forum. and the Asgard managers, union leaders and employees have received helpful feedback and support from the others. Elkem. A WRI researcher and later NTNU Ph.D. fellow. Karin Aslaksen, has worked on the Joint development of strategies for enterprise development in this corporation since 1 990. Her Ph.D. dissertation is concerned with experience from the corporate strategy for ·site development' (Aslaksen 1 999) . The corpora­ tion owns 1 2 metallurgical smelting plants in Norway. and all have needed rapidly to improve their competitive edge by upgrading their ability to develop their production systems and products. The corporate strategy is intended to co­ ordinate change processes in the plants and in the corporate HQ. This issue is of general interest to all the other Forum companies and plants, because they all are part of (transnational) corporations and struggle with issues like local develop­ ment versus central control and corporate synergies. The Elkem concepts. strate­ gies and experiences, which are well articulated and documented (which is rare) , will be one of the themes of the next Forum in September. Eramet Mangan. A spin-off from the Forum and the long-standing work with Elkem has led to a recent R&D contract between two manganese plants and WRI following Elkem · s sale of these to a French corporation. The general idea is to run the two plants (Porsgrunn and Sauda) as one and to include as many of the earlier corporate headquarters functions as possible in the organization. A general up­ grading of skills and competencies through a participative, socio-technical rede­ sign process lies at the core of this. The contract with WRI is expected to provide the redesigned company with expertise on enterprise development which it cannot keep within its own organization nor obtain from the new French head­ quarters.

I SO

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

Saga Petroleum. WRI has a general research contract with Saga Petroleum. In 1 998 the main activity was linked to the development and use of methods for revision In co-operation with the Corporate Audit Services. Saga made a maJor change In Its organization In 1 998. One of the central processes was an empower­ ment process that also Implied changes In the Internal audit technique. This Implies exploration of techniques that move from external control to a larger degree of self-assessment and Internal control. Internal audits are explored as techniques that allow work groups to Identify or refine the obJectives that they should be fulfilling. and to assess the adequacy of the controls In place to meet those obJectives. Self-assessment In groups has been the main tool for the Corpo­ rate Audit Services In this process. A number of wru · s different forms of partlclpatlve design methods have been Important tools In these processes . The benefit for the enterprises In the process Industry from our R&D collabo­ ration Is mainly the support they get from us In designing the processes described above. In addition they also benefit from their participation In a network like Forum for New Concepts for the Operations of Process Plants. Management Is coming to recognize that most of the development work Inside the enterprises has to be done by the enterprise Itself. rather than by management consultants. When this Is recognised, the Interest In meeting others In the same position to share experience, uncertainties etc., becomes more Important. We also see that there Is a growing recognition that the challenges on the local union side are similar. So, gradually. more of the enterprise delegations that come to the Forum Include local union leaders. Presentations of experience by local union leaders from Borealls and Asgard have further strengthened the others ' Interests In doing the same.

Future Program Design Proposals One obvious reason for WRI to appreciate ED 2000 positively Is, of course, that this program may be seen as an extension of the use of action research (or Interventionist research. or whatever term one likes to use) In the field of enter­ prise development based on the Institutional agreement on collaboration between the two main parties In working life. However, ED 2000 has come to represent not only a quantitative extension of the field, but also a qualitative Improvement, In a way which has served as a challenge to our own ways of doing action research. In Norway action research within this field of enterprise development was for many years performed mainly by researchers from WRI. In this situation, our theoretical knowledge. that there are many possible approaches to R&D proJects within the field of enterprise development. has remained In a sense Just theoretical. simply because of the lack of practical examples of other approaches. ED 2000. with Its number of modules. all with different approaches but all within the same Institutional framework. has changed this situation considerably. The

THE WORK RESEARC H INSTITUTE MODULE

151

various kinds of R&O projects whJch have been carried out by the different EO 2000 modules have provided a clearer as well as a more specific understanding of the fact that R&O collaboration on enterprise development takes place In a number of different forms. These differences are due not so much to single factors like the conditions of the local enterprise, the topics of the development process, variations In research approaches, and so on, as they are due to the far more wide­ ranging differences made up by the constellations of these factors. Each constel­ lation constitutes a specific setting. providing each module with a set of unique condltlons and tasks. In thJs way the real plurality of the field has come to the fore as a practical situation, not just as a theoretical horizon. This plurality, which has emerged In the course of EO 2000 . has made some points more clear. points which are of Importance for the strategy for future R&O projects and programs In this field. The first point. which may seem quite obvious. but which we nevertheless find worth mentioning. Is that If our own efforts at reform are to have a stronger Impact on the development of working life, this cannot be done only as an effort to expand and deepen our own approach. It Is necessary to enter Into dialogues and forms of co-operatlon with other research approaches, on the premise of a kind of mutual acceptance of both the legltlmacy and the necessity of pluralism In this field. Expressed more generally. this also means that If a strategy Is adopted of making even more Integrated future research programs In this field, these efforts at further Integration have to be made on the basis of stimulating this pluralism. not eliminating lt. Our second point Is closely related to the first: EO 2000 has shown that stimulating pluralism does not mean stimulating a process of ' atomization· . Rather the opposite. By being exposed to this pluralism, both the researchers In the different modules, as well as other people working In some part of the Infrastructure for supporting enterprise development. are In a better position to acknowledge the complementarlty of the different research approaches, as well as the complementarlty of other supportive functions. Thus, our third point Is that the very Institutional frames and the organization of EO 2000 have In practice exposed the relationship between the different actors and Institutions that work In support of enterprise development as basically a complementary one. Since the · bottom line ' of the efforts undertaken by the actors In the Infrastructure Is the Impact of these efforts within the enterprises, neither any particular research approach nor any particular Institution within the Infrastructure can claim In advance to represent the most effectlve strategy. From this fact, and from the principle of complementarlty lt follows that the · mecha­ nism · of enhancing and Improving the contributions from the various actors within the Infrastructure has to be a dlaloglcal one. a kind of network of different kinds of dialogues. based on the quite wide range of experiences made In the course of the overall process. To us lt seems that the task of organizing thJs kJnd

1 52

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

of dialogue Is the most crucial one, and perhaps the most ambitious one, In future enterprise development. As for the question of how to organize a possible new program. it Is also worth mentioning one common denominator across the various modules. despite all the differences: whatever kinds of collaborative relationship which have been established between research and enterprises, the very process of establishing these relationships Is one that consumes a great deal of time and resources. As we have touched on earlier, the process of establishing these relationships should be considered a kind of Investment. Thus. to get the right pay-off from these Investments, a new program In one way or another ought to try to build upon, or make use of, those relations between research and working life which have been established In the course of ED 2000. In this connection we would like to underline that, as a consequence of the overall purpose of Improving on the ability of work life research to contribute to work life reform, at WRI we have considered ED 2000 a much needed opportu­ nity to both recruit new researchers Into action research projects within the Institutional framework of the co-operation agreement between the labor market partles. and to create new and better links between graduate students I doctoral students at the universities and ongoing research projects undertaken by senior researchers In this field. Thus. to recruit new researchers. to connect doctoral students and graduate students to our ED 2000 projects In a way that makes this relation function as a kind of · on-line ' research education program on action research within working life. has been one of the main purposes at the level of our own research Institution. In this we have succeeded well In some respects. An example Is one doctoral thesis completed (Aslaksen 1 999) and one doctoral thesis forthcoming. But we have also faced some problems with the retention of good research talent. This problem would certainly be less acute If there were less uncertainty about the conditions of the stability of thJs field of research In the future.

Research Results and Future Research Prospects The theoretical outcome of thJs kind of R&D project Is not ' findings' by which extstlng theories could be tested or new theories might be built. Rather. the theoretical outcome Is Intended to be new lnstghts. new perspectives and new Interpretations which we try to bring Into the various relevant scientific dis­ courses. As we have touched upon above, each publication Is written. not only with respect to what kJnd of practice it Is derived from. but also with respect to what kind of discourse the publication Is aimed at. To give a few examples: some of our publications are aJmed at presenting new perspectives on work life reforms as a more general Issue (I.e. Ftnsrud 1 998: Mtkkelsen 1 996a: PaJshaugen 1 996b:

THE WORK RESEARC H INSTITUTE MODULE

1 53

Qvale 1 995 , 1 996, 1 998a) , while others are aJmed at exploring some more specific issues more closely or directly linked to the particular R&D-project (e.g. Engelstad 1 995, 1 996: Mikkelsen 1 996b: Palshaugen 1 998a. 1 998b) . In order to contribute to the enhancement of the very discourse(s) on action research and organizational development, we have also participated in establishing and run­ ning a new international Journal with this objective (PaJshaugen and van Beinum 1 996) . In addition to this. it is also from time to time a necessary part of the research task to write contributions to working life research both of a more descriptive kind (like Qvale 1 998a, 1 998b) , as well as from the point of view of theory. methodology or philosophy of science (Finsrud 1 995: Karlsen 1 999: Palshaugen 1 996a) - and, as we have touched upon earlier. the publications wtll also differ in content depending on the context: whether it is aimed at a national / Scandina­ vian or international audience. The strategy of not primarily writing reports to the enterprises also has some significant exceptions, and we also write a certain number of articles which are aimed primarily at the various kJnd of actors within the enterprises and within the infrastructure for supporting enterprise develop­ ment (Palshaugen 1 995. 1 996a) . A number of publications. relating to some of the core issues of our ED 2000 module are still in progress (both in English and in Norwegian) . Among these is a Norwegian anthology on Research and Enterprise Development (Palshaugen and Qvale in prep.) , which will be edited by us. but which will also contain contributions from three other modules. Though we of course would like to have had fewer publications in progress and more of them published, we evaluate our production of publications as quantitatively satisfying. given the fact that in the first years a lot of time was of necessity spent in establishing the collaborative relations with the enterprises, and that the maJn part of our publications should be rooted in these collaborative relations. In this sense we have by and large achieved our research objectives. As to the quality, we have to leave the Judgement to others, not least since the impact of the publications within the research community is one of the criteria. For these reasons, and from the general point of view that our research results are of both a practical and a theoretical nature, we wtll Just give an indication of our evaluation of our research results in general by connecting them to the six main objectives of EO 2000. Establishment or further improvement of development organlzatlons This was one of the maJn objectives of our module. The very different kinds of development organizations established at in particular at VBK. Kongsberg De­ fence & Aerospace, Fellesslakteriet and ELKO, have indeed broadened the scope of both the theoretical perspectives on the concept of development organization and on its practical applications. From these practical experiences we have gained the new. more differentiated and specific understanding that when the parties at

1 54

C REATING CONNECTE DNESS

enterprise level. in particular management, are very conscious of what ts to be obtained. combined with an openness about how, and in what way, the formation of the development organization can be very flexible, and can take different shapes in accordance with the particular development tasks to be performed. Estab/Jshment or further Improvement of enterprise networks

The network of process industry enterprises. which has been under construction for a long time, and which took shape in 1 998, is a successful example. In the technology industry, however, there have been very few incentives for the enterprises with which we collaborate to co-operate in networks. It should be mentioned that one of the doctoral theses is devoted to the study of a network in this industry. but not an ED 2000 network. Estab/Jshlng concepts. frames of Interpretation and International co-operation which faci/Jtate a better comparison ofpatterns of development and organization between Norwegian and International enterprises

Except from the fact that the maJority of the enterprises of our module compete on internatlonal markets, and that some of our publications in English (or German) touch upon this topic, this issue has not been treated as a separate dimension in our research. It should, however, be mentioned that as for the international cooperation withJn research on action research and organization development. one member of our module is co-editor of the Journal Concepts and TransformaUon. since it was established in 1 996. Providing examples of how further development of the 'Norwegian model of co­ operation · may give Norwegian enterprises compeUUve advantages

These examples are not yet written from this perspective. but the results pertaining both the first and the second objectlve above have provided examples of this kind. Further development of business Ideas connected to the development of work environment, democrauzatlon and motivation

We have done no separate work on this topic in our module. Further development of the Infrastructure to support enterprise development

This topic has over many years been an important part of our research strategy, and as we have commented above. ED 2000 has given rise to both new forms of practices and new perspectives on this topic, some of which will be presented in the anthology we are editing.

THE WORK RESEARC H INSTITUTE MODULE

1 55

Editorial Highlights Although the style of presentation as well as the level of detail concerning the participating enterprises differ from Rogaland Research. there are also points In common - actually. In spite of the differences, the points they have In common are quite pronounced: a great deal of emphasis Is, for instance. placed on building the Initial relationships to the enterprises - what, in this report, is called ' the link­ up phase ' . This Is not characterized by research ·selling ' a message. a theory. a bag of methods, or any similar product, to a more or less reluctant buyer, but the creation of a dialogical relationship. The purpose of a dialogical relationship is nothing other than to conduct dialogues. and dialogues are generative processes in the sense that they create new orders as they occur. The co-operation between the research group and the enterprise is not about how to implement something that exists ahead of the dialoglc situation but about how to create something together. The point that the process is not about how to use fixed and structurable reason, however, does not mean that everything is unstructured and that the co­ operation takes the form of a series of happenings. It emerges from the report that there are elements of structure; the report uses the term infrastructure. to underline that whatever exists In terms of ' structure ' Is there to support the generative process, not to decide its content. This is quite an important point: although the differences may sound subtle they are actually quite easy to see within the context of actual development processes. If. say. enterprise actor A argues that · it is impossible to co-operate with B · the researchers from this group would not argue that ·you have to change your view and start co-operating ' , but would Instead try to generate new dialogical situations where A and B could meet in new arenas, together with a number of Cs and Ds that could help turn the discourse In new directions, which could open up new arenas for possible co-operation. No one will try to persuade A that he or she is wrong but instead create new situations where A and B are brought into new relationships that can provide new openings and possibilities (Palshaugen 1 998a) . Central In this context is the idea of · development organization ' , as distinct from ' work organization' . Basically. work organization Is the pattern which is operational when routlnized, or standardized, work operations are performed while development organization Is the pattern which Is used when development tasks are being performed. The distinction Is more analytical than empirical. This notwithstanding. the distinction points at a difference which becomes more and more crucial. It paves the way to seeing development processes and associated work roles and work relationships as a theme in Its own right and as a phenom­ enon that is In itself in need of development strategies. Even development organizations can be developed. and the main purpose of the efforts of the WRI is to be found In this field.

1 56

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

In ' developing the development organization ' it is worth noting that this. in the view of the Work Research Institute, is a task that transcends. by a wide margin, the improvement of processes on the level of face-to-face encounters in small groups. As demonstrated in Palshaugen ( 1 998a) . these are not unimportant but each such encounter cannot constitute its own development universe. Rather, many of the forces that can be brought to bear on change in each specific point, have to do with the relationships between thJs point and other · points · . When A and B meet for a discourse on the factory floor it is part of a long series of similar discourses. longitudinally and cross-sectionally. on this floor and many other floors. in this enterprise and many other enterprises. In this panorama of rather fluid activities certain characteristics. trends. tendencies or whatever can be identified and strengthened to improve the speed and scope of the process. In this way the Work Research Institute ends up - or. as in this report. rather begins with - the institutional setting within which the development efforts unfold. In modern thought on organization development there are sometimes traces of neo-Hberalism: institutional settings are either absent or. if they are recognised. they are ' bureaucratic ' forces blocking the creative urge of the individual. Even institutional settings can, however. function in favor of creativ­ ity and innovation: not to say that even creativity and innovation. however individual they may sometimes look at first glance, are always imbedded in something and this something will always have an institutional level. The prob­ lem is not to bypass these aspects but to make them serve innovation. This is not a once and for all introduction of a specific institutional settlng but a question of a continuous interaction between specific enterprise level processes of innovation on the one hand and institutional context on the other. A further point highlighted by this module is the emerging · seamlessness' between workplace processes and education. In using educational measures to promote development in the process industry. the aJm is to weave the educational efforts as closely into the workplace process as possible. Since educational institutions as well as enterprises tend to cherish their autonomy, and hence the boundaries between them. this is no simple task. A final point worth noting is that a · research position ' benefits from · other positions ' in terms of other researchers who move in the same field but who differ in certain respects. This is somewhat different from the tradition of sorting position into those who are ' identical ' (and should work together) and those who are 'different ' (and should de-legitimize each other) . While some such differ­ ences can be seen as 'different schools of thoughf . other differences are due to context. It is emphasized that even within the same module there is a need to relate differently to different enterprises. The report actually goes one step further. in making the point that differences between research positions can promote co-operation based on complementartty: the experiences from ED 2000 point in this direction. Furthermore. the Work Research Institute follows up on a

THE WORK RESEARC H INSTITUTE MODULE

1 57

point made by Rogaland Research: research publications and user directed publi­ cations are different. Epistemological and methodological differences Is a theme primarily for the scientific publications and these publications and their corre­ sponding discourses fulfil selected and limited objectives for the research groups.

Chapter 9

The Tromso Module Geir Bye, Turid Moldenaes & ]arle Lovland

Goals The primary goal of participation in the ED 2000 program was to develop a cooperative type of research that would enable researchers and enterprises to work together on problems relevant to enterprise development. This approach implied an interactive learning process between the enterprises and the research group. With members from the University of Tromso and the Fisheries Research Institute - also located in TrolllSO - there was an orientation towards the fish processing industry right from the start. Conslstlng of a substantial number of small and medium sized enterprises, this industry is of critical significance to economy, welfare and living conditions for most of the communities along the coast of Northern Norway. Its position as the second largest export industry based on natural and renewable resources would seem to be even more crucial in the future, considering the prospects of the Norwegian oil industry. which can continue for only a limited time. With historical roots going far into the past, the industry has undergone a substantial process of modernization in recent years. Originally serving local or special markets, the industry has become a global actor. with a need to adapt to international trends within fields like quality and logistics. Several major steps had already been taken to meet the new conditions: since the beginning of the 1 980s. the industry had increas ingly used more formally educated productlon workers. Traditionally relying on a force of unskilled workers. thJs increase was partly an upgrading of the competence of the existing workforce. and partly the recruitment by the enterprises of people with a higher level of education. Al­ though this process involved the use of considerable economic and organizational resources. little had been done to assess its effects nor, indeed, of how to best forge the links between formal education and workplace competence. A second area of interest departed from the efforts to introduce new manage-

1 60

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

ment and production concepts like Total Quality Management as a response to Increased demands. especially from the European Market. which accounts for more than 213 of the Industry 's total export value. Third. the main Industry organization. The Fish Producers ' Association of Norway. had Initiated a formal training program for middle managers In order to provide more adequate management resources and lnslghts. This Initiative needed to be followed up on the process as well as on the assessment side. A fourth Important factor had to do with a shJft In the organizational location of sales functions. Historically, these functions tended to be taken care of by special, co-operative sales organizations. With a growing need to link sales to quality and delivery times, the sales functions were being shifted to the enter­ prises. But how well equipped were the enterprises to take care of an Increasingly Internationally oriented sales and marketing function? There existed no formal network structures between the enterprises In the relevant parts of the fish processing Industry. To respond to the demand for network relationships Inherent In the ED 2000 design, as well as to develop channels and arenas for the diffusion and discussion of experiences and results, network development became a further major concern of the module· s efforts. Associated with the enterprise oriented goals was the goal of Increasing research capacity and competence through an interdisciplinary research design based on three different perspectives: intraorganlzatlonal, interorganizatlonal and benchmarking. Thus the aim was to provide a more relevant and complete understanding of the processes of enterprise development. together with a broader set of research competences that could be made available to the enterprises. In this context the module set up the target of producing three doctoral theses and ten postgraduate theses. The qualification work for these students was planned to take place in close co-operation with the participating enterprises, instead of being hosted by the academic institutions alone. A major problem in program and project design in the Norwegian research system has been the lack of Integration between different institutions and disci­ plines, due to the disciplinary program design and research funding system. The design of ED 2000 made it easier to combine disciplines: now lt was possible to form a Joint approach utilizing both the Institutional theory base of the university and the more management and economics oriented base of the applied institutions of the Tromso module.

Assessment The measurement of success must Include both quantitative and qualitative Indicators. The number of publications and dissertations might give a certain Impress ion of the module· s contributions, but the most important measure of

THE TROMSO MODULE

161

success must be the companies· qualttative assessment of the value of the contrt­ button from the research tnstttuttons. Crucial ideas in this context are (the ex­ change of) complementary knowledge, democrattc dialogue and the abtltty to define problems and work out solutlons Jointly between the researchers and the enterprise actors. The task of the Troms0 module has been to relate to already existing developments by bringing the knowledge of research to bear on these processes , creating arenas for interaction between. and further development of, both types of knowledge. This tmpltes that enterprises and researchers should co-operate closely, and that the deflnttlon of problems and development of solutions take place in a dialogue. This process depends on mutual trust between the parties. and this. in turn, depends on each of the parties recognizing the complementary knowledge of the other as valuable, as well as on the abtltty of each of the parties to act in accordance with establtshed norms of cooperation. These concerns are important in many contexts, such as the way interviews should be carried out. and the way researchers treat conftdentlal data when working in different (and often) compet­ ing enterprises at the same lime. Furthermore, the methodological approach of the module has been to com­ bine intra- and tnterorgantzational perspectlves and theory with a benchmarking and organizattonal learning approach. A main goal of the tntraorgantzatlonal approach has been to enhance coop­ eratton and parttctpatton among employees in the development acttvtties of the enterprises. One measure has been the establtshment of groups collaborating wtth people from management as well as from the unions. The baste questton in this connectlon ts the extent to which the researchers have contributed to a develop­ ment in the participating companies characterized by broad parttctpatlon and a wide distribution of responstbtltty in the development processes. A related aspect is whether the development processes and their outcomes gain internal support and legtttmacy. at a variety of levels. The use of collabora­ tive groups has been ltnked to the need to broaden the distribution of knowledge and engagement in processes affecting a large number of the employees. The third area of relevance when assessing the degree of progress made during ED 2000 is the butldtng of research competence in the Tromso module wtthtn organizatlon and related dtsctpltnes, compared with the former marginal and fragmented nature of this research area. The sttuatlon of the R&D tnstituttons of the Tromso module before the program period reflected a lack of tntegratlon between the different dtsctpltnes and tnstituttons due to the research funding and program design system. We find the continuing and stable attentton offered to this area just as important as the number of qualtfled researchers and doctoral theses provided by the program. Research competence Is, furthermore. not to be as­ sessed according to internal standards only: an tndtcatton of success would be a

1 62

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

growth in the demands from enterprises both within and outside EO 2000 for research contributions to development processes.

Internal Evaluation One maJor limitation in assessing the ED 2000 efforts and their outcomes is the modest scale of applied social science research programs in private enterprises in Norway compared to efforts within technological and natural sciences. Although the ED 2000 program has been a highly valued and important contribution in the Norwegian research system, we find it difficult to draw firm conclusions since the program outcome and institutional effects will be severely affected by the low level of resources and a lack of other, comparable R&D efforts. A lack of other, directly comparable efforts is not the only problem: the general undernourishment of the field has led to a lack of fruitful discourses and schools of thought in general. with a corresponding absence of a rich backdrop against which to posit the discourse on ED 2000.

The Enterprises The structure of the fish processing industry in Norway has had an important influence on both the research content and the application of methods in the Tromso module. The enterprises are mostly small and are located in small coastal communities. This structure creates maJor barriers to co-operation between enter­ prises. and between the enterprises on the one hand and the research community on the other. The Troms0 module could build on existing networks to a very small extent. but had to focus and organize the research contributions directly toward a group of selected companies with little previous experience with R&D. After processes of co-operation with a group of enterprises had been establJshed, various possible network relationships would need to be explored. Table 5 surveys the enterprises and their initial interests. There Is also a rough Indication of the results that have emerged. The number of employees range from 50 to 1 50. One expression of the nature of the co-operation between the enterprises and the researchers Is that we have so far delivered more than 40 work-in-progress reports to the enterprises, demonstrating complementary knowledge and views to the Internal participants in the development activities. These reports are applied in form and give the researchers · perception of the problems and possible solutions, applying their theory base and experience from the discussions with the enterprise actors. However. the researchers' proposals are only suggestions for discussions, which the companies can choose to use, modify or Ignore as they will.

THE TROM SO MODULE

1 63

Table 5. Enterprises participating in the Tromss module Companies

Branch

Issues of Interest

PreUmJnary results

Herey Flletfabrikk

Salmon

Benchmarking.

Improved unden.tanding of the need for a more flexible production

organizational culture

organization and the importance of organizational culture. A system for bendunarking activities initiated.

Networking. quality.

Improved 1mdemanding of the signlflcance of formal organizational structures for enterprise development and networking activities. improved co-operation at different levels. Increased attention to management and the challenges of a multicultural work environmenL

AJS

Seafood Varde

aquaculh1re

AJS

Shrimp process ing

networking.

ethical accounting. communication. competence

development

Fjord Seafood Lelnes AS

Salmon farmlng and product development

Networking. competence and resource development, mark.eti.ng strategy

Process delayed and partly terminated due to merger.

Batsf]ordbmket AS

Processing of

Benctunarklng

System for benchmarking activi· ties and productivity enhancemenL

Improvement of formal organization structure and organization of

Improved co-operation and co-<JI'dination between organizational levels; improved work climate, establlshment of development arenas bued on increased participation from emplo,YftS. More attention to leadenhlp and challenges of multiculbnl work environmenL Competence documentation and development for middle managers (management program)

codfish

Nils H. NUsen AS

Processing of codfish

production, communlcatlon. mana�ment

style and multk:ulhual working environment. Formal quallfications of employees and manasement Aarsaher Varda AS

Processing of codfish

Improvement of formal organization structlue, organization of produclion. management s.tyle. multkulhual work environment.

Improved co-operation and CO-<JI'dination between organizational levels; better work climate. establishment of development arenas based on increased participation from employees. More attention to leadenhip and challenges of muiUcultlnl work environmenL

One clear effect Is an Increase In co-operation and co-ordination between differ­ ent levels I areas of the organizations, as well as the experience of an Increase ln participation ln the development processes on the part of the employees. The reasons underlying this experience seem to be the nature of the changes Imple­ mented, as well as the establishment of development bodies wlth all parties concerned represented.

1 64

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

By combining the intraorganizational perspectives with interorganJzational ones as well as with benchmarking. we wanted to provide reference points for the partJctpating enterprises in terms of possibilities for comparison with other enter­ prises as well as with the industry in general. Much of the documentation so far is based on the intraorganizational perspective and relates to data emerging from the analyses and processes developed within each enterprise. This documentation has been very useful in support of internal development processes. It was also necessary as 'stores of knowledge' since there were no network relationships present from the beginning that could directly pick up the experiences and transfer them to other enterprises · on line ' . It will be important to be able to fully utilize these process data and corre­ sponding experiences for activities with greater scientific merit in the future. So far. the process has provided a substantial basis for future research. This target has been given top priority in the activities towards the end of the program. Another indicator of the research results is the number of doctoral students in the program. More relevant research competence was expected to emerge. This was an important aspect of the design of the EO 2000 program by combining applied research activities in the companies with the development of research qualifications. So far, one of the three doctoral students has graduated, while one is still in progress and one has left the program. We find these results fairly satisfactory compared to other models of organizing research and education, in more diverse ways. It is also our impress ion that this integrated model has provided both improved motivation and a sense of direction for the researchers. In addition. the number of postgraduate theses ( I 0 compared to the target level of I 0) written upon subjects related to the module has contributed substantially to recruitment to a future program on enterprise development.

Networks Concerning goals for network activity, we would once again emphasize that the module has not been working within established network structures. Therefore, much of the research effort has been directed towards documenting both internal and external network relationships for each of the enterprises. During the last part of the program we have experienced an increase in networking among the enterprises. One example is the establishment of a network for union representa­ tives in the fish processing industry of Eastern Finnmark. based on a program initiative. The purpose is to support the exchange of information about and experiences with development work between union representatives and. through this. to provide added support to the partictpative development model already mentioned. Another expression of increased network activities involves initia-

THE TROMSO MODULE

1 65

lives from companies and branch organizations to discuss the content and organi­ zation of a future program based on the ED 2000 approach.

The Relevance of the Research Contributions The R&D system has been criticized for not being able to establish a sufficient level of relevant and constructive research according to the needs of the users. At the same time the relationships between R&D instltutions on the one hand. and the enterprises on the other, have been very limited. One important purpose of the ED 2000 program was to try to make the research more relevant both to the enterprises and industries through a closer regional fit between the supply and the demand side. Based on our experiences we believe that, as the Tromsa module is concerned, this goal has been achieved. One important indication has been the emergence of numerous new initiatives during the last year from enterprises and branch / industry level organizations to discuss and further develop the experiences from ED 2000. During these discus­ sions the process oriented cooperation model as well as the research themes initlated by the module have been positively evaluated by the industry. A further important area of work and attentlon has been to present the results of the module at research and industry conferences. We feel that thJs activity has been important since the number of partlcipating enterprises is relatively small compared to the total industry. New relations between the industry and the research institutions have been formed as a result of this process. whJch will constitute important arenas for discussing and conducting relevant research in the future. Due to the close co-operation with the flsh processing companies · indus­ trial organization. many of the results presented have been adopted in the plan­ ning and content of the overall research strategy for the industry.

Assessment of Module Results in Relation to the Main Goals of ED 2000 At the outset of the program. aggregate goals and targets were set at different levels: maJn goals. enterprise result goals. scientific result goals. and goals for the development of interplay and network activity between enterprises and the re­ search system. In the following we comment on how these goals and targets have been reached through the activity of the TroffiSO module. Our judgement is based both on quantitatlve and qualitative indicators and feedback from the participat­ ing companies and industry organizations. We feel that the development of the co-operative research model, which has been given high priority in the module right from the planning phase. has proved

1 66

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

to be a valuable contribution to applied organizational development areas of the type mentioned under the main goal of the program. Hopefully this model can be better documented and further developed In order to serve as a basis for future Initiatives. We refer to the presentatlon of company results above, and argue that most of the companies have been able to establish I develop a new development organiza­ tion. An explanation for some of the problems encountered Is that the module was not able to base Its activity on network structures. but had to establish relatlon­ shlps directly with new companies unfamiliar with co-operation projects with research Institutions. This Implied a higher risk level than for many of the other modules working through already established and functioning network struc­ tures. Concerning new forms of participation In development processes. more than half of the companies have established and used the new arenas and functions created In the program. This might be somewhat lower than the overall target level. but can be accounted for by the relatively limited co-operation experience In several of the participating enterprises. Another explanation Is the limited time frame of the program which makes lt difficult to expect drastic changes In organizational structure at thJs point In time. There has also been a need for a learning process on the side of the researchers, Implying that 1t takes time before the research contributions approach the optimum. Due to the background that many of the enterprises In the fish processing Industry had regarding the development and lmplementatlon of quality systems at the outset of the program, we feel that most of them have been able to Integrate elements of employee health, environment and safety systems In their business strategies. A more severe limitation has been the general lack of administrative resources found In thJs Industry, due to Its previous locallzatlon of sales and development functlons outside the production companies. Although we have pointed out that the number of qualified researchers at the doctoral level will be somewhat lower or later than anticipated, we feel that the module process has fueled the research and qualification processes within the relevant disciplines In all of the partlclpatlng R&D Institutions. As mentioned earlier. the Importance of being able to focus continually on Important and relevant research themes cannot be overestimated. This has also had a consider­ able effect In stimulating Interdisciplinary discussions and research designs within the module. Within the limited tlme available, and given the direct and tlme consuming Involvement with the companies. we feel that a maJor problem has been to establish a discourse with the other modules within the program. This also seems to be a problem for several of the other modules and will be addressed to some extent through the Joint publlcatlon projects at the end of the program period.

THE TROMSO MODULE

1 67

All the module researchers have been directly involved in development projects related to the three approaches to enterprise development of the Tromso module: intraorganlzational factors, interorganizational factors and organiza­ tional learning I productivity enhancement. More than half of the companies have participated in seminars and network­ ing activities devoted to presenting their experiences. reaching a far wider circle of other companies. The module has also been an actlve contributor to other applied seminars and network activities. in order to share results and motivate others to use our approach in development activities. Concerning the number of researchers participating in international co­ operation, we feel that this is an activity of growing significance which has been substantially encouraged by the program activity. We also expect this form of research competence building and cooperation to increase as we now intensify our exploitation of the research value of process and survey data from the program.

Proposals for Future Program Design We feel that the modular design used in the EO 2000 program has been very successful and should be used in the construction of future programs related to these topics. Due to this design we find it more likely that regionally avaHable and relevant research competence wlll be developed. This design also allows for a contextual specialization between the R&D institutions in different regions, rather than fuellng an internal competition where the institutions and regional groups will tend to overlook the more specific needs of their regional users. Over time this will provide a wider and more diverse resource base of knowledge related to enterprise development processes. and the research wlll appear more relevant to users. Another feature of the program has been the attempt to bring together different research disciplines in joint activities. In our module this has been a very positive experience. allowing interdisciplinary activities to take place in the same empirical context. Such a process has positive implications in terms of arenas for the development of Joint methods and approaches to research in relation to work and organizations. We are also very pleased with the thorough and long term involvement of the labor market parties. In many respects they should be honored for upholding the program activity more strongly than the Research Council. Their supporting activity in providing a broad access to unions and employees I management has also been very valuable for the development of our co-operative approach. We also support the coupling of research I education with applied develop­ ment processes in the companies. This has been a tremendous inspiration for both

1 68

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

established researchers and new recruits. In a future program we would like to increase the share of resources spent on research assistants and postgraduate students. in order to improve the recruitment basis. The support for scientific publishing established by the program is very valuable and will encourage the presentation of interesting empirical and scien­ tific papers based on the processes of the program. We therefore believe that this activity should be continued and intensified in order to support the efforts within many of the modules to exploit the empirical experiences in a more scientifically meritorious manner. In a future program we would like to see more attention given to the creation of a more visible and direct cooperation between researchers in the various groups I modules. The problems experienced in this respect in the ED 2000 program can be accounted for by the very demanding local processes in which the modules had to become involved when developing their enterprise networks and establishing internal co-operation. In any future (or continuing) program activity it should be easier to institute this kind of project activity, thus allowing a closer and more focused research co-operation. We have experienced some administrative problems due to lack of co­ ordination between the Research Council. the labor marked parties and the program secretariat. At times this has. in our opinion. led to a high level of formal and administrative reporting and assessment activity, thus shifting the focus and resources away from the primary concern of carrying out good empirical research in interaction with the enterprise partners. We consider these problems to be related to the fact that ED 2000 has been an exception within the research system, and thus forced to prove its value much earlier and more rigorously than other programs. Hopefully this problem seems to be evaporating as other programs get a more similar approach and design. A problem with ED 2000 has been the rather limited financial resource base. As a program within the social science area it can be considered to be of normal volume. but when the action and development perspectives are taken into ac­ count, the program appears grossly underfunded in relation to the goals and aspirations expressed at the start of the program. The limited funding and resource base also has an impact on the commitment of the enterprises. With limited research resources to offer, the incentives for participation and resource commitment from the enterprises can be weakened as well. This, in turn. can have a negative effect on their · ownership· of the development process. The researchers run the risk of having to undertake unin­ tended roles by acting more like consultants and short term trouble shooters than as researchers with a more long term perspective. These problems should be addressed adequately when designing similar programs in the future. In order to increase the amount of resources it seems

THE TROMSO MODULE

1 69

necessary to organize the roles of different sources (private and public) to provide a wider and more integrated resource base. As an example. the Public Bank for Rural Development has a wide set of funding measures to stimulate enterprise development, networkJng and innovation processes. whereas the resources within the research system appear limited and inadequate for this purpose. To provide for more efficient use of resources, future programs should also ensure that all relevant interests and roles necessary to support enterprise devel­ opment processes are represented when designing the modular and regional program structures. With reference to the experiences from our module in the fish processing industry context. with its scattered locations. a future program should be organized on this broader financial base. including increased funding by the users and local authorities for regional development. The research inputs can be more efficient if we are able to create a more integrated interplay with local bodies and bodies established Jointly by the industry and local I regional authorltles to support development activities and competence building locally. Such a pattern would stimulate local interaction as the basis for development and transfer of research knowledge to end users. Within such a pattern the relationship with consulting and regional develop­ ment resources could be developed on a broader basis than that one provided by EO 2000.

Editorial Highlights In many ways this report parallels the previous ones, but the emphasis differs. For the Tromso module the creation of local, or regional. development coalitions is an even stronger focus than in the Rogaland case: a difference that can be explained by the point that network relationships had proceeded much further prior to the start of the program in the Rogaland area than was the case for the fish process ing industry in Finnmark. The flsh process ing industry exists in a fleld of tension between a number of strong forces: it is, on the one hand, a very old industry: the processing of fish has been going on for centuries - even the export element is very old. On the other hand, the industry is caught in a fast-moving process of globallzatJon and (in a sense) modernization. as the products are being sold in a growing number of markets. The industry has to adapt to a number of new demands and concepts but has to do lt with very small management- and expert resources. The enterprises are , furthermore. geographically spread, often in such a way that there are difficulties with face-to-face contacts. Climatic condltlons and work environ­ ments border in certain respects on the extreme. Much of the workforce is immigrant. often from far-away countries and cultures. There is, for instance, a

1 70

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

substantial contingent of Tamlls from Sri Lanka In this outpost beyond the Arctlc Circle. Many of the points and reflections contained In the report relate to how to create a developmental context for enterprises of this kind. Again. 1t Is worth notlng that this context Is not a question of deltvering a message to the enterprises telltng them ' how to be smart ' . ' Context' must be taken In a much more ltteral sense, as actors. relationships. resources. Infrastructures. that the enterprises can draw upon In continuous processes. It Is also emphasized that this context needs to be ' local ' In the sense that lt must be · close· to the enterprises. The need for such a 'closeness ' emerges particularly clearly when one focuses on distance. In contrast to many enterprises existing In densely populated areas. these enterprises exist In communttles characterized by small populallons and long distances between them. A main flshtng harbor as Batsfjord - receiving fish not only from a fleet of Norwegian vessels but from a Russian one as well has a population of 3000. There Is no hustle and bustle of everyday Hfe that can hide the fact that the human resources are sparse. In such a setting the ideas of 'the close ' and · the local ' acquire an especially pointed meaning. Obviously, these enterprises do not expect · closeness· to mean presence In a completely literal sense. Much of U Is social rather than physical. It does mean, however. that there are actors that give a high priority to helping these enterprises, visit them regularly and develop relationships that allow for continuous commu­ nication even during periods of physical absence. Since these enterprises are global actors. deeply Involved In meeting a range of challenges. the supporting actors cannot represent only a narrow segment of competence. There Is a need for an Infrastructure that can help the enterprises deal with Issues ranging from organization and technology via qualtty and logistics to marketlng. There Is a need for support within fields Hke the development of Hngutsllc competence. education and training. the development of viable local communities and much more. Numerous elements of knowledge and competence need to flow Into the local community, to meet the needs of a multlplex process of stepwtse development. It Is not a question of supplying one kJnd of wisdom along · one It ne ' . but of numerous Hnes. The Hne constituted by ED 2000 Is In this sense only one. This line. however. has some special characteristics In the sense that it provides. through Us focus on organtzatlon. a source for reflection also as far as the other Hnes are concerned In terms of how they should be organized and related to each other and to the local community. Perhaps the best way of understanding the Idea of · closeness · Is to see it as a reference point for organizing the development process. This point has to be the local community: the ' place' where the enterprise Is located: Its ' here and now' . Going by the experience within this module. this cannot be done from 'afar' . Development cannot begin somewhere else, be U In Oslo. or even Tromso. and

THE TROMSO MODULE

171

then reach Batsf)ord as a 'scheme ' to be ' applied' . To some. this may seem obvious. However, when we turn to how efforts to create economic development tend to be organized in modern society, it is far obvious. Rather. the number of general schemes and solutions proposed. tend to approach the unlimited. This case throws some further light on the problems often associated with recruiting enterprises that have also been noted by the previous modules. Recruiting an enterprise to a development intttattve can be seen as ' persuad­ ing the enterprise to try a certain kind of product ' . It can, however, be seen from a somewhat different angle, as a questlon of a ' fit' between the here and now of a given enterprise and the offers of an enrichment of context inherent in Joining an effort like ED 2000. Rather than seeing ED 2000 as offering a new product ­ 'discourses on organization ' - to be evaluated by itself. each enterprise can be seen as already existing within some kind of development context where the question is to what extent a program like ED 2000 will provide a meaningful addition to, and enrichment of, this context. The difference may appear subtle but it can be of maJor practical importance. An enterprise may, for instance. very well be interested in organizatlonal dimen­ sions. but feel that they are otherwise taken care of, or that they have to be approached, but at a later stage, or in combination with other factors that may not yet be present. The experiences from the Troms6 module highlight the point that even for research groups in a particular field - in this case organization - the problem will often be to help construct a total development context rather than one single element in such a context. To conclude with a somewhat slogan-like formulation, the point is to create user-centered but multlplex development contexts, or infrastructures. In such contexts, or infrastructures. each separate ingredient may not have to be over­ whelmingly sophisticated and · advanced · . The fish processing industry may be well served by rather well established elements of knowledge and wisdom. But this does not mean that we deal with a simple task. The point is not so much the nature of each separate element as the interplay between them and their link to the specific, local, here and now situation of the user. It Is here that the challenge lies: it Is in the creation of a meaningful and well-functioning totality that the enter­ prises can be helped forwards.

Chapter 1 0

The Agder Module Harald Knudsen and Hans Chr. Garmann johnsen

Introduction The · Southern ' or · Agder module· In Enterprise Development 2000 seeks to lnltlate and develop Individual and organJzatlonal learning processes in partici­ pating enterprises and in associated networks of enterprises. The module Is sponsored by two large networks of local firms, the · Kompetansering Sor' (' Competence circle south · , 28 firms. mainly West Agder) and the T f -rlngen · ('The Information technology circle · , 45 firms, mainly East Agder) . The research group has Its base at the Agder Research Foundation which Is. In turn. linked to the Agder University College. The module alms at three different levels of contact - or ' Intervention · with participating firms. First, at any one time, to have a group of firms participat­ Ing In Intensive development projects. Second, through the two networks. to have a varying number of firms participating in network development programs. Finally, throughout the duration of the program, to have an ongoing (academic) research effort. mandating off-and-on. non-obtrusive observation. called a schol­ arly research program. In the Intensive development programs. the firms themselves have defined areas of focus. However, all the firms that have been In this program. have gone through an initial phase of dialogue conferences. In reviewing these conferences, we have been able to gain a comprehensive understanding of the challenges facing each enterprise. Based on these observations and also based on our lnltlal module program draft. we have defined some major research areas. What Js the role of leadership philosophy?

Should leaders commit themselves to a particular leadership philosophy? What Is the role of mentor-leadership In the development of communltles of practice?

1 74

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

These are among the questions we focus on, when we invite the participating firms to a leadership development program. What is the role ofpersonal involvement in work?

This Is the main topic In a doctoral thesis In preparation. The personal dimension of Involvement In development processes Is thoroughly discussed In this thesis. What is the role ofpartJcipaUon in the development processes ?

This Is one of the main topics of the program. We focus In our research on how employees themselves define participation and how this relates to motivation and leads to Improvement and development. What are the structural and social precondiUons for partJcipatJon?

We have seen that the level of participation differs among the enterprises. Within this research topic, we try to focus on factors of a structural and social kind that wlll explain these differences. It has been one of our module· s main tasks to establish a close link between research and consultancy. and at the same time give the two a posslblllty for developing In their own right. An overall analytical framework for the module has helped to establish a creative forum for mutually beneficial discussions and learning.

Goals The shaping of the national ED 2000 program owes much to a long -standing Norwegian tradition of co-operation between the maJor actors In the labor market, and between social science research and working life. Such a tradition ls, lmpllc­ ltly or expllcltly, part of all the modules of the ED 2000 program. However, lt should also be recognised that no one single theory of enterprise diagnosis or Intervention underlies the program. either at the national or the regional level. A maJor research effort in the Agder module has been directed toward the constitutional and innovative aspects of enterprise development, combining struc­ tural, processual and learning elements of development. An Important constitutional issue, linked directly to the problems of global­ Ization, Is the extent to which the traditional meeting In the factory. between labor and management I owners. ls a ' fake ' In the global firm. Is the traditional ' meeting of the parties· - or · co-operation between the parties' - an authentic arena for

THE AGDER MODULE

1 75

dialogue and decision? Or is management so strongly caught tn the webs of globalization that the meeting becomes little more than a ritual. where important matters are always decided somewhere else? More specifically. what role can such · co-operation between the parties · play under various forms of globalization? At a more general level, the constitutional issue raises some fundamental problems of moral philosophy and pragmatism. In the meeting between indi­ vidual and enterprise, and between enterprise and environment, what is the relationship between tacit and explicit, individual and organizational. learning. and what is the relationship between learning and enterprise constitution? Is there anything like an · ideal regime ' of enterprise development? Enterprise development of the ED 2000 type means something more than just product innovation or productivity increase. It is the creation of open lines of communication. of relationships and teamwork marked by trust and respect, that is at the forefront. This is the essence of what we call mentor leadership. And it is the relationship between such mentor leadership. on the one hand, and the resulting innovative and productive capacity. on the other, that is to be critically examined. The process may need both freedom and control. openness and struc­ ture. Too much energy has been devoted to maintaining equtltbrtum. eliminating tensions and enhancing consistency, thereby sacrificing vitality. Not even the commitment to a consistent ideology is seen as being unconditionally positive for the company. Too strong a commitment in any one direction may produce vulnerability to sudden environmental shifts. Or. ' overconfident. complacent executives extend the very factors that contribute to success to the point where they cause decline ' . Such paradoxes - and many more could be cited - may offer an explana­ tion of why studies of · the benefits of participation· have offered only inconclu­ sive (although mainly positive) evidence concerning the relationship between co-operation and performance. A more profound understanding of these issues require attention both to the paradoxical structural variables and to the phenomenologtcal fine-tuned elements of leadership. co-operation and teamwork. The number of meetings and Joint committees may not be a good indicator of mentor leadership. These two broad areas, relating to the keywords constitution and innovation, have been the subjects of baste research tn the Agder module - producing both a doctoral dissertation and scholarly articles. The overall frame of the Agder module is molded in what we call ' theory building in practice' and what is often discussed as communities of practice. The core idea is that novel. innovative and motivated action at the workplace happens in rather close environments charac­ terized by informal and trustful co-operation.

1 76

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

Activities Six firms have taken part In a development coalitions program. Although the underlying Idea Is that the firms themselves should define the development Issues, we have argued that all of them should go through a phase which Includes at least the first two of the following four elements. Phase one starts with preliminary Interviews and a one-day 'dialogue confer­ ence ' . The Initial Interviews are considered very Important. Although the dia­ logue conference may be a good opportunity to discuss maJor problem areas and alternatives. it Is not always a good occasion to bring out emotions. secrets and gut reactions. The dialogue conference Is a ' public · setting. Some partlclpants hesitate to talk about sensitive Issues In such a setting. but they may want to do so In an Interview. Also. for the EO 2000 team. it Is an advantage to have a preliminary knowledge of problems, Ideas and hopes, before staging the dialogue conference. The objective of the dialogue conference Is to gain acceptance for a contin­ ued process, decide on the further direction and sequenclng of the process, and matters of team composition and teamwork. In the case of the one-day dialogue conference. the role of the researcher should be one of process consultant, not disregarding direct questioning and recommendations, however. A third element Is leadership training. Leadership training Is not only for managers. not even mainly for managers. Rather, it Is for all levels of partlclpants and for all heads who need to be Involved in the EO process. Training in teamwork and interpersonal communication receives special attention. This also Includes training In principles of ' learning-to-learn ' , as related to technical skills, to personal traits and abilities. and to creative skills. The nature of Intervention and the definition of the change agent role obviously depends on what comes out of the Initial Interviews and the dialogue conferences. The philosophy behind the project favors · action learning· ap­ proaches rather than traditional 'organization development' , but nevertheless the Intervention has Included both of these and some others. But it should be empha­ sized that all our intervention programs aim at furthering dialogue and reciprocal learning. Learning In networks has been facilitated In the Agder module. by use of several. different strategies. First of all, we have used the two networks of firms, Kompetanserlng Sor and IT -rtngen. to communicate the underlying Ideas of EO 2000 . We have updated firms in these networks on the development of EO 2000 through conferences, newsletters and meetings. Second, the member firms of these networks have been and will still be candidates to enter into the EO 2000 program themselves. Third, more issue-related topics on Inter-firm level have been addressed through targeted groups within the two networks. Finally. there has been an ongoing leadership training program with participants from EO 2000

THE AGDER MODULE

1 77

module firms as well as from other national and international firms. These programs have a focus on the leadership philosophy mentioned earlier. In addition to these activitles and operative goals for the module. it has been one of the main objectives for the Agder module to develop a sustainable mtlteu of organJzatlon development expertise at Agder Research Foundatlon in co­ operatlon with Agder College. This Joint environment should not only be able to handle internal co-operatlon problems and be able to perform both practical consulting and research, it should also be able to develop a way of interactlon with firms different from what is normally found in consulting businesses. The paradox is that on the one hand researchers are brought in because of their expertise. They are supposed to have a profound, professional understanding of the business operatlon. On the other hand, in order for the learning process to be relevant to the practical needs of the companies. and in order for employees and managers to develop a feeling of ownership of the development project, they need to have the prime responsibility for defining the problem areas as well as for structuring the process of development. In addition to the problem of defining the role of research, there is also a more practical problem concerning the ideal of a completely open-ended process. Most business managers today ask for a tender, stating what you can do as a researcher-consultant. what results to expect, and what price they will have to pay. At least initially. they tend to ask for a ' product ' . To answer that 'we ' ll see what happens' is not good enough. Handling this paradox has been a maJor challenge.

Achievement Criteria One of the major strengths and at the same time challenging aspects of the EO 2000 program has been its non-directive open-endedness. The aim has been to learn. rather then to test. Learning is a floating phenomenon. It describes a movement. In grammatical terms. it's a verb. As is generally known, a verb cannot be defined, it can only be described. Likewise with learning. we can have indicators of learning, but no test of the learning process as such. In the following we describe some of the indicators that have been used in the Agder module. Before revealing these indicators. it should be mentioned that there are good reasons for arguing that these indicators are of secondary interest: first, the type of process that is initiated by the EO 2000 projects may have a very important impact on the development in the participating firms. without there being good indicators to ' prove· it. This is mainly because they are intertwined with the complexity of organizational processes in general. Second, the type of process initiated by EO 2000, affects the cognitive frames of the participants. their way of thinking, so to speak. The effects of

1 78

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

changes in mental frames, sense-making and attitudes are long-term. longer than the project period. Furthermore. people are often unwilling to 'admit ' that they have ' changed their mind ' . Third. ED 2000 may have an effect ln areas other than those that are focused on by research. For instance, the type of co-operative cllmate initiated by ED 2000 may improve the personal wellbeing of individuals, while the research work may focus on. say, economic efficiency. None of this means that we disregard the need for indicators and success criteria as such: only that we are aware of their shortcomings. Perhaps the best way to feature the real achievements of the Agder module would be in the format of narration. To write the story of the module in the format of a novel would make lt possible for others to grasp the dynamics of the project. We are considering using such a narrative format in a later review of the module.

Summary of Criteria A.

Criteria on Module Level

The maj or criteria on module level have been: To establish close co-operation between the scientific environment at Agder I. College and the more operational milieu at Agder Research Foundation. 2 . To develop a sustainable group of people and competence in enterprise development topics in the Agder region. 3 . To establish development coalltions with strong interaction between the research group and enterprises ln the region. B.

Research Criteria

I.

Through internal seminars, workshops and doctoral programs. the aim has been to increase the general level of competence ln enterprise development topics. The aim has further been to establish a sustainable group of researchers that are able to write papers for international publication and to take part in the national as well as the international debates in this area. The aim has further been to establish links with other Norwegian research milieus and international research networks. and develop mutual projects and activities. The module should be able to produce one doctoral thesis, books and a considerable quantity of papers and conference presentaUons. A specific target is to have at least one article publlshed ln a top international Journal.

2.

3.

4. 5.

THE AGDER MODULE C.

1 79

Criteria on Firm Intervention Level

Our company-related activities have followed the structure presented earlier. The content of these projects has been defined by the firms them se Ives. The research­ ers have not promoted any particular goals related to what the enterprises should focus on. rather our goals have been on a meta level, related to the process Itself. The quality of thJs work could be described In terms of the following Indicators: 1 . We should be able to go Into substantial projects with 5- 1 0 enterprises during the ED 2000 period, where the maJor financing comes from the enterprises themselves. 2. We should create an organization development program to Initiate the type of process aimed at by ED 2000. 3. We should be able to develop a group of qualified people who are able to handle such projects. 4 . The enterprise development projects should be comprehensive, that Is: relate to and Involve the enterprise as a whole. 5. The success of the Individual projects should be measured by the willingness of the enterprise to contlnue the co-operation and by the Interest from other enterprises In Joining the coalition. D.

Criteria Related to Network Activities

By networks we mean two things: the Initial two networks of firms that helped us establish the module. and networking between the flnns Involved In ED 2000 projects. Our objectives have been related to both levels, but are very different at each level. To summarize some of these objectlves. we have aimed at: 1 . Communicating the ED 2000 project to the two networks (Kompetansering Sor and IT-rlngen) through newsletters, conferences and workshops. 2. lnltiatlng a general debate In the region related to enterprise development based on the ED 2000 Ideas. 3. lnltlatlng networking between people at different organizational levels In the enterprises that has ongoing ED 2000 projects. 4 . Network-based leadership training.

How to Measure Succ:e.ss? The Indicators or criteria listed above are concrete as well as ambiguous. No objective measurement criteria can be established for all the objectives. In the following we have chosen to use a qualitative measurement ln terms of Identify­ Ing gaps between what was Initially expected and what has so far been achieved. The yardstlck goes from successful (overshooting or meetlng expectations) via

1 80

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

partly successful (not fully meeting expectations) . to not successful (failure to meet expectations) . We also distinguish between two stages: ln progress (which means that we think that we shall achieve our goals, but have not yet done so) and not executed (which means that we have not yet started the process) .

Critical Assessment Table 6 lists the assessments according to the above criteria. The evaluation Is based on the gap between expectations and performance. Little Is explicitly said about the expectations. Many of the dimensions listed represent ongoing pro­ cesses. The reporting Is based on the present situation. not on prospects. Nothing Is said about the relative Importance of the different criteria. And finally, when we report that we have been partly successful. there might be both highly successful cases and less successful ones within this category. The overall picture Is that the Agder module has been a success. We have achieved the main goal of establishing an environment of competence In the area of organization development based on development coalitions and co-operation between Agder College and Agder Research Foundation. Having said that. we have set up high expectations and goals for what we want to achieve both on the practical level In the enterprises and on the research level. According to these expectations. we are not satisfied with our achievements so far. but we are committed to go on. At the enterprise level. we can see a clear picture of where we succeed and where we don't. We succeed ln those places where there Is a thoroughgoing commitment. As will be shown In more detail below, some of the cases that we started out with did not have this type of commitment. However, what we also see, In particular In one case. Is that the ED 2000 proJect Is about to achieve results beyond our wildest dreams. Similarly. on the research level, 1t Is too early to Judge the achievements. According to the results, they are medium (as Judged by our expectations) . But by assessing the type of environment and comml tment In the research group, the Agder module has the potential to achieve maJor academic goals ln the years to come. The strength of the module Is the close link between excellent people working ln the enterprises and motivated and talented people In the research group.

Assessment of Company Related Achievements It Is the overall aim of the ED 2000 program to encourage enterprise development through broad and Intensive participation. Although the firms In the Agder module have each defined their areas of activity. they have all been aware of this

THE AGDER MODULE

181

Table 6. Critical seU-assessment according to self-defined criteria Suc:c:tafal

Partly

suae��ful

Nat sucaslful

In pt'GII'III

Not eucuttcl

A: Criteria on module level

Co-operation between Asder College and Agder Research Foundation.

X

A sustainable group of people and competence in the region. The establishment of development coalitions.

X X

B: Research criteria

Increase the general level of competence.

X

Establish a sustainable group of researchers.

Develop links with other Norwegian research mllleus and International research networks.

X

X

X

X

X

Produce one doctoral thesis. books. artkles and papers.

Publish In a top International journal.

X

C: Criteria on firm intervention level

Substantial projects within 5 enterprises.

-

10

An organizational development program.

X X

Development of a group of qualified people.

X

Comprehensive development projects on enterprise level.

X

Ongoing involvement and renewed contract and acbaal organizational chanse.

X

D: Criteria related to network activities

Conummlcate the EO 2000 program to the two networks.

X

Initiate a general debate on work and organization In the region at

X

Initiate networking between EO 2000 enterprises.

X

Initiate a network for leadenhip training.

X

meta objective. which can be defined in tenns of the following five criteria. Criterion 1 . Legitimacy in enterprise development is created through broad participation (measured by the number of employees taking part in the ED 2000 process) . Criterion 2. The enterprise development process should be based on problems as they emerge out of the situation of the enterprise and in a process where all concerned participate (measured by the extent to which the areas of development

1 82

C REATING CONNECTE DNESS

are those that are defined by the employees as the most Important) . Criterion 3. The ED 2000 process should be Integrated Into other ongoing development processes In the enterprise (measured by the extent to which the ED 2000 activity Is phased Into the day to-day operative routines) . Criterion 4. The ED 2000 process should be based on the Idea that future challenges are met by Internal development coalitions (measured by the extent to which a permanent forum for co-operation Is established) . Criterion 5. ED 2000 should Initiate development coalitions and networks be­ tween enterprises as a support for development processes (measured by the extent to which a new pennanent forum Is established) We have evaluated the first phase of the ED 2000 project ln each of the six participating enterprises. according to these five criteria. Our evaluation Is given In Table 7. Finns, organizations and corporations have had an Increasing tendency to change their Internal organization through development processes. A flow of concepts like Total Quality Management, just In Time, etc. has penetrated the world of business and public organizations. A recent survey done by the Norwe­ gian Statistical Agency shows that. during the last two years, some 40% of all Norwegian employees have gone through some fonn of organizational change process. The purpose of thJs type of effort has been to meet changing market requirements, to deliver higher quality or ln general to make the organization more efficient. There Is another stream of motlvatlons for organizational change. related not to efficiency as such, but to the general social quest for more participation and more democratization at the workplace. This politically motivated drive has. over the last years, been argued In tenns of efficiency: more participation means more efficient, competitive organizations. Porter (1 990) argued along these lines In his major study of the competitive advantages of nations. He wrote that the Scandlna­ vlan model of workplace participation was an asset that might be further develTable 7. Assessment of firm related achievements according to general criteria.

Criterion l :

C rlmion Z:

Crlmion 3:

Crttmon 4:

Crttmon S:

legitimacy in enterprise development Is created through broad panidpation.

The enterprise

The ED 2000

The ED 2000

development process shall be based on challenges m they are defined by the enterprise (with paniclpation from those concerned) .

process should be integrated into the ongoing development processes in the enterprise.

proceg shall be based on the vision that future challenges are met by internal development coalJiions.

The EO 2000 proceg shall initiate development coalitions and networks

betv.'een enterprises as a support far the development processes in each enterprise.

THE AGDER MODULE

CUl l :

The regional division of a large retaU group.

No. only the No, the shop managers problem .-eas were to a large p;uticlpated. extent defined by top management.

CUI Z: 50 out of 500 The regional f*ticlpated. division of a large telecommunlcadon company.

Yes. the main problems when! defined by the EO

The Issues discussed were more related to implementation then to development. No. the EO 2000 process was kept separate

1 83

No, the process ls based on eo� that are developed centrally.

No.

No. this was

No.

not achieved.

Not anchored in the operative units.

CUI 3: A Norwegian subsidiary (production unit) of a global American based industrial enterprise.

45 of in all

Yes. but the 1 50 employees problerm seemed to be participated. too large to lbere were sarong handle. so the discussions and process involvement. stopped (but seems now to be back on track).

CUI 4:

No. only the leadership renowned local level hotel. now part p;uticlpated. of a large international hotel group.

Yes.

A well

At the moment The EO 2000 the EO 2000 process has come to a halt process has come to a halt

No.

Yes. the

No.

No. there was problems little belonged to the willingness operative areas from top management to do thaL

Subsequently the process

stopped. CUe S:

Yes. almost all Yes. as a result A locally based the employees of broad energy particlpallon, participated. production this was company. achieved.

Yes. the EO

Yes. the

2000 project became the

process was contl••ed in the operative

internal stnstegy process

No.

units.

.

CUl l:

A heavy industry unil pan of a Norwegian industrial group.

Yes. 45

of 225 employees p;uticipated. However. we registered in the first phase little involvement in the lower part of the organization.

Yes. to a large extent, although the reseiU'Cbers took an active part in deflnlng the areas.

No and yes. In Yes. the EO phase one it 2000 team has was a project worked with on the sideline. strategic however. in the issues. later phase lt has been

integrated into the mainstream of organizational processes

No. but in progress.

1 84

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

oped In order to Improve competitiveness. In hJs analysts of Sweden, he wrote:

Swedes. like Japanese. are co-operative and loyal to the company. Swedish companies are characterized by conservatism. discipline. and trust. Leaders are non-directive but respected. Communications are open and organization Is lnfor­ mal. (Porter 1 990: 349) The Scandlnavlan tradition of workplace co-operation was extensively studied during the 1 960s and · 70s. The focus In this llterature was on how to create a work environment that allowed for human Initiative. self realization and an ensuing commitment to work. The commitment was embedded In an environment of co­ operation between trades unions and managers and an extensive use of team organization. particularly on the shop floor. Group autonomy. In combination with soclo-technlcal work design and democracy at work, was argued to induce efficiency. higher quality and development (Emery and Thorsrud 1 976) . The Porter report triggered a new Norwegian debate and a renewed focus on the Scandlnavlan model of co-operation at work. Torger Reve ( 1 994) criticized this focus on Internal co-operation. arguing that Norwegian enterprises were about to become too Inward looking. with a lowered abllity to meet the future global challenges. Reve would rather see a more active and Influential ownership and focus on company core values. Bjorn T. Ashelm ( 1 995) argued In a reply to Reve that worker participation Is one of the most Important elements In order to achieve the goals of more competitive companies. His focus was the organization as an Internal arena of learning. Local learning requires decentrallzation and employee participation. Furthermore. Ashelm argued that competitiveness to an Increasing extent Is developed In networks among enterprises. Bjorn Gustavsen {1 998) went further In arguing that the Issue Is not one of who In the enterprise Is In the best position to Implement ' the best solution ' . employees or owners? In the kind of changing and post-modem environment enterprises exist, there Is no strict ' best solution' . Rather. organizations should focus on commitment to change. He further argues that the only way to achieve this commitment Is through serious. open and reflective co-operation at work. He calls for more focus on the Interplay between workplace processes and Institutional context. Tom Colbjornsen and Elvlnd Falkum {1 998) take the argument further by Integrating arguments from organizational economics with more neo-lnstltutional arguments, and thereby to some extent reconclllng the arguments of Reve and Ashelm I Gustavsen. They argue that:

Unique employer - employee relations that are embedded In history. tradition corporate cultures. and that are supported by a nation · s institutions and values. may be difficult for foreign competitors to Imitate. and thereby confer a sustained competitive advantage. (Colbj0111Sen and Falkum 1 998) and

In their view. worker participation Is the kind of core value that Reve requests.

1 85

THE AGDER MODULE From Program Level to Module Level

Our reading of the broader Issues. addressed at the program level. ls that we In general want to know more about how comprehensive and extensive employee participation at work can Initiate efficiency. Improvements and be a core value for Norwegian enterprises. The goals at the module level must be to provide detailed and solid Insight Into these Issues on the micro (company) level. We have summarized some of our findings so far In Table 8 according to the flve criteria of participation that we listed earlier. Table 8. Moduk-Jf!'Vf!J achif!'VPtneniS according la f'I"OifTPSS-kveJ criteria

3:

Crlterioa 1 :

Crltmon 2:

Crlt1rloll

Legitimacy in enterprise development ls creted through broad participation

1be enterprise

The EO 2000 process should be integrated into the ongoins development processes in the enterprise.

development process shall be based on cha.llenses as they are defined by the enterprise (ln a process with participation from all concerned) .

Yes. in most cases Yes, the method as there has been a such, see ms to broad particlpallon. guarantee that the but limited to phase organization itself one In phase two a defined the areas smaller group of improvement However. we have participated because the questioned whether the discussions are more detailed. The process addresses challenge is to the real problems maintain involve- and not only pseudo-problem� ment and enthusiasm in the lt is a curious fact whole organization. that only in two In the follow-up in cases, have real one case, a brOild stnltegk issu es and comprehensive been addressed. organizational development project ls initiated. .

,

CrltKiaa

4:

Crlt1rloll

S:

The ED 2000

1be ED 2000

process shall

process shall initiate development coalitions and

be based on the vision that future challenges are met by internal development coalitions

yes and no. In

most No. this does not cases the process seem to be the has been extra dominating

organizational. ln perspective. one case lt was Firstly. many developed into the organizations are strategy process, in nm by concepts another the developed centrally. manasers had planned to Participation is implement a new viewed as a means organizational order of implementing. (but was stopped by not developing headquarters) . A these concepts. third case seems to Second, most fulfil the objectives workplace unions of a comprehensive seem 1mprepared process. to go Into real particpation on strategic issues. However, in two of the case� we might be able ID see development in this fleld.

networks

between

enterprises as a support far development processe�

No, this has not happened. Some interests have been articulated. but most firms of this size, that are put of larger enterprise� have their own networks. However. we see now that very targeted intra firm eo-operations occur, so this might be ar1 area of development.

1 86

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

Some Tentative Conclusions We have argued that the module's objective Is to provide solid and verifiable Information at micro (firm and organizational) level. We have also argued that lt Is too early to summarize our research activity. Our comments at this stage are therefor tentative. Having said that. we have made some In our view Interesting observations. First. there are clear Indications that the organizational development process Is more sincere In organizations with strong unions than with weak ones. This same observation can be found throughout both Industry and service companies. Second, lt seems to us that the new type of concept-based corporation represents a new challenge, where. on the surface at least, the tone Is more open and partlclpatlve. but where the actual room for local maneuverlng Is very small. Issues discussed are related more to Implementation than to development. Third, In half of the cases we have worked on. the top management has been changed during the period. These cases are also the cases where the activities have ceased. Finally. lt should be mentioned that firms are at different stages In their development, that more extensive changes take considerable time and that we have not yet seen the real effects of the processes we have started. To summarize: to what extent has the Agder module helped In achieving the ED 2000 program goals? First. the Agder module has established a solid and sustainable group of people. Including both those with practical sktlls and researchers, that follows what seems to be very challenging processes In heavy Industries. Second, we have learned from some of our failures, Improved our products, and cast a critical eye over the processes we have Initiated. Third, we try to see these micro-level cases In the light of the general academic debate. And finally, although we have not yet reported this as successful , our aim Is to Initiate a general debate on the regional level to encourage the Ideas for development coalitions at work. Throughout this assessment we have commented on the ED 2000 program In general. We have argued that the strength of this program may also be Its weakness: Its open-endedness. non-dlrectedness, etc. However. all In all, we argue that this program has been a success , and that the program should be able to continue. The strong argument for the continuation of the program Is that only now are we seeing the emergence of the real organizational changes that the program has Initiated. In the years to come. we expect there to be considerable achievements In maybe three or four cases. The argument for continuation Is, furthermore. that those aspects that have formed the weaker part of the program so far, will be considerably strengthened

THE AGDER MODULE

1 87

by the emergence of successful enterprise examples. Networking and the willlng­ ness of other enterprises to enter the program will be extensively encouraged by success stories. They can be used as driving forces in the continued progress. Research results will follow practical results. The type of development coalltlon initlated by the projects is an excellent idea. but should be given time to show its potentlal. To summarize. we belleve that what we are about to achieve should be further encouraged, and that the program should be continued in its present form. The part of the program that should. in particular. be improved, is its role as a partner in the open publlc debate. puttlng a focus on organization development processes based on broad participation. The development of a sustainable team of competent people with both practical and theoretlcal skHls that can enter into comprehensive development coalltlons in larger enterprises, has, in the case of the Agder module, been a great success.

Editorial Highlights An interesting aspect of this report is the way the group describes its efforts to link

participation in workplace development processes with reflections on some of the themes involved. The core field of interest for the Agder module emerges in the interplay between participatlon. leadership roles, the Norwegian I Scandinavian tradition of partlclpation and globalization. What kind of leadership is needed for participation to be possible in the individual enterprise is linked to the question of what scope for local judgement and local freedom is at all possible in a globalized economy. The threats to participation may not have so much to do with the way in which Norwegian managers choose to play their roles as with what possi bilities they have for making any choices at all. The llmitations to local freedom may, furthermore, not so much be the traditional technological-economic constraints as the emerging · global conversations ' . · G loballzatlon · can be seen to encompass many dimensions of work and enterprises but at the core of all these dimensions one finds the possibility of 'global communication ' : of speaking to each other across all the traditional boundaries. To achieve this. however. there is the danger of a ' standardization ' of the conversations: of an ordering of themes and argu­ ments according to a universal blueprint in such a way that the freedom to set agendas locally is strongly curtailed. What emerges is ·global agendas ' and associated themes, concerns, and discourses that local actors must enter into, however unsuited they may be to local conditions. ' Quallty' and the associated ' total quality management ' may exemplify such a trend : with a continuously growing range of concepts and benchmarking systems. Obviously, the actors of an enterprise in southern Norway cannot ' maintain

1 88

C REATING CONNECTEDNESS

internal democracy' simply by neglectlng such agendas. In a world which is globalized, at the same tlme as there is a need to deal with issues like quality, actors at the periphery cannot set their own standards. What. then. should they do? The reflections of the module indicate that the only way open to the local actors is to develop an active relationship with the global conversatlons. There is a need to enter into them, penetrate their meanings and directions. and then reconstruct these elements so that they can be applted locally and a continuous interaction establtshed between the local and the global. Only then can all local actors participate. Equally obvious is that this is not an easy task. In the above report the group has not proceeded sufficiently far to tell us the full story of how to do this; in fact there is ltttle reason to belteve that a recipe wtll ever be forthcoming. The Agder group indicates. however, some points of relevance in this connection. First. the leadership functions have to be developed In such a way as to make the employees share · management concepts · and become partners In internal versions of the discourses around these concepts. Management cannot define an exclusive conversational domain and withdraw this from the internal processes. Management may. however, need to translate between the internal and the external. Second, by indicating a step or process function in the development of partJcipation, it is emphasized that developing an active relatlonship to the global conversation impltes passing through several steps, or different orders. of partici­ pation. Third. by emphasizing the network perspective the Agder module empha­ sizes that each enterprise cannot enter the global conversatlons alone. The enter­ prises must form larger communities. These communities must, however. be formed from ' down below ' : from the level of each enterprise. building upwards. Otherwise. the internal processes will soon be left behind. Fourth, by ltnking enterprises within the region on a more permanent basis to a regional college and a regional research foundation the Agder module also emphasizes the need for intellectual resources that can serve the enterprises in this kind of process. In making these points the Agder group follows the others in holding forth the need for a community, or a set of social relationships. within which to pose problems and work out responses. 'The challenge of globaltzation ' is not a set of issues that can be placed on a decontextuallzed and abstract agenda to be dealt with purely by, say. reading the more popular management literature. To get on well with the challenges does not demand a passive ' reception ' of wisdom. lt requires active. constructive, efforts. These efforts demand connectedness: they demand a sufficient ' mass ' of actors with complementary relationships to each other. By using the term ' community of practitioners ' it is indicated that the users of research are not to be seen as

THE AGDER MODULE

1 89

individual or scattered groups of enterprises but that it is a main point to make them form a community. or development coalition. as it is generally called in the EO 2000 context. The module has made a major effort at providing a structured framework for assessment and evaluation. Ordering things in categories for presentation in tables does not, of course. give the presentation a ' scientific quality ' that may be absent in a running text. When to use one form and when to use another depends on preferences that are not, in themselves. ·objective · . Clearly, however, certain points can benefit from a form such as that chosen by the Agder module. such as points pertaining to how far a process has advanced along a definable axis. We stlll talk about points of orientation rather than frameworks permanently fixed in linguistic space: a point that is, however, made perfectly clear in the report.

Chapter 11

The Trondheim Module Johan Elvemo. Morten Levin and Ida Munkeby

Goals This module was created Jointly between the Institute for Industrial Social Re­ search and the Department of Sociology and Political Science at the University of Science and Technology In Trondhelm. The goals of the module have evolved as experience was gained from the projects. Our Initial Interest was In working with companies that were deeply engaged In change efforts. We wanted to give preference to working In depth with some few companies rather than work with a fairly large group In a network based approach. This position was argued with the board of Enterprise Development 2000, and after a fairly long process of negotiation we finally received an acceptance to engage In depth with five companies. With one company (Ertcsson Htsey) the cooperation ended as the corporation sold out the production division, and tried to move the engineering activity to Oslo. The second company (Norsk jetmotor) never passed the Initial assessment phase. When it came to Implement agreed upon plans, they were not able to make a decision. The partlclpatlng companies are Aker Marttlme Verdal (shipbuilding and offshore) . HA G (office furniture) . and Norsk Hydro Sunndal (alumtnum) . A key selection criterion was that we wanted to be linked up with Important change efforts at company level. One Indicator In this context was whether the companies were willing to pay for those parts of our efforts that could be used rather directly In their own development processes. If they were, we judged it to be a fair possibility that we were working on Issues of Importance to the compa­ nies. The Initial goals were fairly conventional, stressing Issues of cooperative trade union and management efforts to enhance development In a multi-profes­ sional setting. As the work In the module got off the ground, the goals moved towards a focus on Integrated enterprise development, which was identified along two dimensions. The first has already been mentioned - that we were given the opportunity to work on Issues of maJor significance to the enterprise · s business

1 92

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

activity, and not on issues that could be nice for the local actors. but not of maJor significance. The second was the possibility of applying a holistic approach, taken to mean a Joint engineering - social science approach to development. A core point in this context was to be able to work from both perspectives on the same issues. We had a clear understanding that multidiscipllnary research could not evolve unless the researchers shared the same practice. Engineers and social scientists would have to approach the same challenges and negotiate a way to deal with them step by step. as they gradually developed an insight Into how the different professions were thinking and working. In addition. there was the goal of strengthening the ability of the educational system to train students In enterprise development and associated themes. A core measure In making this goal real was to create a network of relationships that could enable the students to become engaged directly In the development proJects. The Initial Intention of the module was to work In-depth with a limited set of enterprises and not become Involved In network building. However. this came to change and the goal of creating an arena where the enterprises could learn from each other was added to the others.

Success Criteria The success criteria have emerged as a part of the development process Itself. They are of course closely linked to the Initial goals, but they also reflect how the learning process In the module has evolved. The clarification of results can be done through conventional social science methods (qualitative as well as quanti­ tative) . but this clarification Is Just as much a question of a sense-making process where the actors involved negotiate what can be considered results as well as the extent to which ED 2000 can be said to have accounted for these results, as it Is one of measurement. Against this background. the following could give reasonable Indicators: The extent to which changes In technology and organization have actually occurred In the participating enterprises. The extent to which network relationships have developed between the enterprises and the extent to which they have InitiatedJoint learning processes. The extent to which the enterprises have Increased their ability to exploit knowledge sources - one of these sources being their own development work. The extent to which development has been brought more strongly Into focus between the social partners locally. The extent to which learning processes are emerging In the Interface between social researchers, technologists, production engineers, shop stewards, man­ agers, students. and other Involved parties.

THE TRONDHEIM MODULE

1 93

The clarification of these points must be seen as an assessment process Involving all parties concerned. All stakeholders must participate In negotiating what should count as results as well as how results can be related to the measures Initiated under the ED 2000 umbrella (Finne. Levin and Nllssen 1 995) . There Is more than one valid evaluation of results and what Is counted as results cannot be dissociated from who Is doing the counting. When the stakeholders have agreed on what to measure and the requisite measurements have been done. the stake­ holders should agaJn meet to Jointly discuss the results and their Interpretation and meaning.

Critical Self-Evaluation The following critical self evaluation Is organized under two main headlines. First, we reflect on the work we have done regarding the goals stated above. Second. we Identify Issues that we have not worked on, and that we believe should be Important In future efforts In the field of enterprise development. MulUdJsclpllnary research

The team experience with both Aker and HAG demonstrate that multi-disciplin­ ary research processes cannot be taken for granted, but also that when they are functioning, they benefit the learnJng processes of the research team as well as those of the enterprise. To generate cross-disciplinary processes Is difficult and there Is a need for a huge amount of patience. humility, respect, and time to be able to develop a common understanding and a shared language that can promote Joint learning. When working together with professionals who think and act on a very different basis than oneself, agreement on Issues and approaches takes time, and this Is only the first step ln a long process. The problem Is not only to build research teams with an ability to work across disciplinary boundaries. the teams must also gaJn trust from the enterprise actors In such a way that the cross­ disciplinary perspective can play a real role In the development. One of our early experiences with Aker Maritime Verdal was that the social scientists basically communicated with the people from the Human Resources department. while the engineers were discussing the ' real stutr with top management, the engineers or the operators. It Is easy to be placed on the sideline when entering an arena where other actors dominate. If multi-disciplinary teams are to work In enterprise develop­ ment. much time Is needed on Inter-team and Intra-team (research team company teams) learning and discussions to specify the research contract and to develop research questions whJch take advantage of the diversity of Interests and

1 94

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

competence within the group of researchers as well as among the local actors. We did not understand the full depth of these challenges. and expected multldisci­ plinary work to emerge automatically. just by bringing people together. We greatly underestimated the time needed to make multi-professional communica­ tion possible. The multidisciplinary approach. implying research competence ranging from technological issues Oike welding. ICT, management of production. KANBAN, enterprise modelling). to organization and management have made us able to communicate with and bring together a broad number of local actors who normally do not communicate very well. The multidlscipllnary ' heart' of the Trondheim module has also had effects on network level as it has affected the choice of topics. forms of presentation and order of discussions In the meetings between the enterprises. A maJor challenge In this interdisciplinary field has been to produce relevant and concrete Ideas and plans for actlon. While engineers and economists tradi­ tionally have a repertoire to draw upon in envisaging action. social scientists tend to delimit their proposals to process Issues. One point of learning is that the social scientists should be less reluctant to come up with concrete plans. and not be unwilling to suggest specific organizational solutions. Teaching and feedback to ·academla' from ' reality ' represent fabulous op­ portunities for experiencing how the academic world is perceived from the outside. The closeness to the field. as ED 2000 has been. has given rich opportu­ nities to develop a perspective on how research institutes and universities are viewed by people not living inside these institutions. A challenge is to be able to utilize the data we have collected, and in this context to be able to take advantage of the totality of experience both from those enterprises to which we could create a developmental relationship lastlng for the duration of the program as well as from those that (for different reasons) left the module. It is important to take advantage of the richness and potential inherent In these data. Publishing Is a way of creating mutual understanding and eo-generative learning processes. This has worked within the research teams (we have had several seminars where wrttlng together has been the issue) . In the next 'Enter­ prise Development program ' . we would like to work more on writing together with company actors. as this could contribute to the processes of mutual learning and interpretations of critical events in our common history. Teaching

A key goal has been the integration of University staff. SINTEF researchers and students from different university departments in partlclpative enterprise devel­ opment. DEMON (Democratic Learning in Network) in the Trondheim module

THE TRONDHEIM MODULE

1 95

has taken responslbllity for the teaching of engineering students during the last nine years. All students are doing their project work In different enterprises, most of whJch are ED 2000 enterprises. In the period of four years some 35 students have participated In the DEMON program. For the next study year, 1 999-2000, we are Including students from the Department of Sociology and Department of Quality and Productivity In addition to the students from the Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management. This program Is very popu­ lar, and for the next semester we have an application from 50% of all eligible students In Industrial Economics and Technology Management. The challenge Is to continue to maintain the quality and popularity of this DEMON program. ThJs means finding resources to continue engaging ED 2000 researchers In teaching. We consider lt to be one of our major Issues to train new generations of engineers In the ' Scandlnavlan' way of working with enterprise development. Initially. we did not lay a great deal of emphasis on developing a network among the enterprises. The politics of ED 2000 pressured us to engage In thJs activity and a meeting was held with participants from the enterprises. It would be greatly exaggerating to call the first meeting a great success. Prlmarlly due to bad planning on our side. we did not make it work. Since then. we have learned, and we strongly feel that the subsequent five meetings gradually have turned Into a success, In the sense that the Interest In the network of the Trondhelm module seems to have Increased. The number of participating companies has Increased. We arranged our sixth network meeting In May 1 999 at Reros, with 55 partici­ pants. Typical content ofa network seminar.

VIsiting and learning about the host company (this counts for the 2nd. 3rd and 4th meeting) . Sessions held by the researchers. based on research findings from the pro­ gram. Thematic cross-company discussions between participants on topics such as the use of outside support In change management, the role of the union ln change. etc. Leaving tlme and opportunities for Informal discussions to take place. The design for the next seminar Is the last topic. This design Is developed ln a eo-generative manner. It Is Important to have an ' opponent ' to challenge the views and proposals made, to keep a lively conversation going on and going somewhere (not just anywhere) . We have experienced that the network has powerful possl bllitles for leamJ ng:

1 96

CREATING CONNEC TEDNESS Between enterprises: Across enterprises: Between an enterprises and the research group: Between the network of enterprises and the researcher group: Between the network of enterprises, the researchers and specially Invited professionals.

So far we have been discussing Issues related to our Initial goals. During our period of operation. competence and skills In strategic management and micro economics (company related economic theory) have greatly Improved. with consequences for our ability to deal with what we Identified as key change processes. It will be a maJor Issue for future work on enterprise development in the Trondhelm Module to seek research partners that are capable of further developing competence within these fields. To obtain these we need to look for partners on a national rather than a regional level.

Module Results Viewed in the Ught of the Specific Goals of ED 2000 Estab/Jshment of development organJzatlollS In companies

This has not been a goal for the Trondhelm Module work as our main obJective was to be directly linked to key change processes and not to create a parallel developmental organization. Estab/Jshment of Inter-enterprise pattern of developmental work

It Is reasonable to consider the network as a successful approach to inter-company learning and development. The estab/Jshment of concepts. frameworks of evaluation and International co­ operation

Since the initiation of the work In the module we have put a lot of emphasis on International cooperation. Professor Davydd ]. Greenwood of Comell University has all the time been consulting with the group on a regular basis (twice a year) . In addition, several guest lecturers and scholars have visited the module. The creation of examples of further development of the Norwegian model

It Is a complex Issue to measure the potential contribution to increased competi­ tive edge. The relationship between enterprise development activity and the

THE TRONDHEIM MODULE

1 97

results have to be clarified as a part of the overall situation of factors lmpactlng the competitive edge. Further development of business concepts related to HMS and Further development ofsections of the public apparatus which attend to concerns· pressing needs

These two issues have not been of major concern for the work In the Trondhelm Module. Academically credible work

We are only in the first phase of producing work of a conventionally academic nature. So far, we have one specific publication In an lntematlonal journal. a chapter In a book on ED 2000. Further. we have used the examples from the Trondhelm module in several papers, either published or accepted for publica­ tion. If we succeed In producing our four outlined books, 1t seems reasonable to argue that we do support the overall ED 2000 goals.

Future Program Design Excellent Issues of the ED 2000

ED 2000 has had an excellent feature just because of the pure length of the program. This gave us an opportunity to work with a long-term focus (4-5 years) . Especially In the situation In which researchers working on contracts generally find themselves, these five years have ensured continuity over a reasonable period of time. ED 2000 has enabled us to become acquainted with the strong Norwegian work life research tradition, and to reflect and focus on how this tradition may be developed into an agenda for the future. Suggestions for Future Program Design

-

Improve the poss ibility for researchers networking across the modules. The program would have benefited from having organized a conference earlier, llke the Gardermoen meetlng In the fall of 1 998 (a meeting between, In principle, all the researchers Involved In ED 2000) . Our judgement Is that researchers from all modules found this meeting very useful. - The modulartzatlon of the program should potentially be reevaluated. There Is In the current program a rather profound difference In experience and skills In

1 98

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

working with enterprise development. A new program design could probably benefit from supporting the most promising modules rather than spllttlng the money equally between all participating modules. The argument Is. of course, that for enterprise development to survive and prosper as an academic activity and as a concrete activity at enterprise level, 1t ls necessary to create sustain­ able research groups. - Create better learning opportunities among module leaders. The current mod­ ule leader meetings were a good start, but ln a possible next generation program these meetings should take on a stronger role of coordinating the activity. They should be modeled to create a leadership team. - Retain the long program period (5- 1 0 years) . and grant long term contracts wlth the researcher groups Involved.

Research Results and Future Problem Focus The ongoing research work has focused on a set of problems among which are: The role of gender ln enterprise development; Management training as a tool In enterprise development: The role of the social partners on a local level ln business development; Action research based development work with new production systems; What has been very Important has been developing the form and content of a new research process In terms of a theory for what we term · manufacturing action research· . With all the praise for pluralism and multi-disclpllnary perspective, why should the action research discourse llnk itself and llmit Itself to social research only? The contributions stemming from the world of sclentlflcally constructed knowledge (Levin and Greenwood 1 998: 1 09) , have to go beyond social research, which ls far too narrow a knowledge source. We want to create a partlclpative approach to organizational change that Involves central actors from the technical side. For this, engineers and social researchers need to work together, ln the same way as employers and employees need to work together. Trans-dlsclpllnary research ls going beyond just communicating between e.g. sociology and engineering. To transcend a dlsclpllne means. llterally. to step out of it and Into something else. What this new ls, Is partly what MAR (Manufac­ turing Action Research) Is about. In the true MAR dialogue, your home field (knowledge. practice) Is what legitimizes your participation. But to realize the MAR dialogue, you and your dialogue partner wlll have to acknowledge - and llve by ln practice - other validity claims than those of your own academic base­ camp. Today our understanding of technology as well as our thinking about social organization ls different from twenty years ago. The discourse on organizational

1 99

THE TRONDH EIM MODU LE

learning in Scandinavia has been dominated by US (read: Boston academic and consulting environment) context. It is important to critically deconstruct this thinking and practice. The challenge is to bring the concept of organizational learning into the context of industrial relations, co-determinatlon and negotiations characterizing the Scandinavian scene. G lobaltzatlon is a current vogue word, and the workplaces will face major challenges as the globalization of the world economy is increasing in importance. Globalization concerns the social. polltical and economic changes that are taking place. Today. trade grows much faster than GNP. and the rate of international investments grows faster than the trade. This means that most workplaces are or will be affected. We have quite successful experience in teaching students. We want to develop our pedagogical thinking both to Improve our local teaching. as well as to be able to 'export ' this thinking to other schools/universities. Our current thinking in the field of enterprise development Is encapsulated In Figure 5. It shows how the different aspects of enterprise development. teaching and research Integrate In the same process. The arrows In the figure Indicate where key arenas for learning discourses would be Identified, and In our trans-professlonal approach the cross in the middle. llnking enterprise learning systems with the research system, Is the core challenge for the future.

• • •

• • • •

•

s�C:i:!rs ....-4..: :

• • •

\p!lll

.. . .. ��

----·

• •

• •

:•

•• • ·

:

• • • •••••••••••••••• ••

I

�/ .

·.

.

• ••

. .• • • ••

·

•• ••

• • • •••

..

I

Coached Students Figure 5. The relationship behl'een research. teaching an practice. In /nterprlse detre/opment.

200

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

Editorial Highlights Technology - and 'new technology ' In particular - has generally been assigned a maJ or Importance for the development of work roles. work relationship struc­ tures and labor - management relationships. The question Is how this Impor­ tance manifests Itself. The simplest way Is to see lt In terms of one-way causality: If a certain technology Is present. lt will exert a specific Influence on work roles and patterns of organization between the people who are to use the technology. Few students of work and organization have departed from such a simple notion, one of the reasons being that it is not only so that technology 'chooses' organiza­ tion, organization also 'chooses' technology. In the soclo-technlcal school technology was thought to make itself felt In terms of a complex set of relationships to the social part-system which was, however. theoretically definable. One concept Introduced to catch the essential nature of this relationship was ' directive correlations' (Sommerhoff 1 950) . This concept was, however, never converted Into empirical studies or emplrtcally expressed experience. In actual practice. the soclo-technlcal school came to apply a highly differentiated view on the llnks between the technological and the social . With the advent of Braverman · s analysts of the fragmentation and deskllllng strategies of modem capltallsm. technology was assigned a role as mediator In this context (Braverman 1 974) . As a seemingly 'neutral object ' , technology could be used to drain the workers of their skills, fragment the workplace, turn one group of workers against another, the ultimate purpose being the growing domi­ nance of capital over work. While the perspective could have some degree of Intuitive valldlty. lt again turned out, however, to be difficult to plot out how this was actually done. Instead of assuming that the relationships are In some way or other ' inherent· In any given man - technology situation, and can be mapped out with the help of adequate research methods, the Trondhelm module locates a discourse. or dia­ logue, in between. A few marginal cases excepted. technology does not emerge as unequivocally given structural requirements. but in the form of a discourse on what requirements, needs and options a given technology constitutes. · First llne · In this discourse Is the engineers. who can be seen as the conversational represen­ tatives of technology. To see to lt that social and human concerns are given consideration, social research can be brought In. This is Identical to bringing In another discourse. The problem Is how to llnk them. The point made so far by the research group is that this is no simple question of creating a mutual 'structural fit' or of adding some social concerns to essen­ tially technological discourses. Instead lt Is a process of hard work demanding mutual respect and In need of working together within specific practical situa­ tions. Patterns cannot be worked out In a general form from a distance but need J oint action In specific, concrete. settings. The man - technology Interface Is In

THE TRONDH EIM MODULE

20 1

principle an open situation subject to constructive action in exactly the same way as any other 'relational-responsive' situation. The outcome of the ' constructive action' can go in different directions. the point being that what direction emerges lies in the discourse more than in the technology. How to relate to technology - new or old - consequently becomes one of positioning the actors concerned in discourses where all relevant concerns can be brought forth and patterns developed in non-authoritarian and democratic forms. While the initial intention was to work with the enterprises separately. an initiative for inter-enterprise co-operation has emerged. After a slow start this initiative has gained quite a lot of momentum. The initiative is approaching a network-type co-operation and this is a research-initiated network, created as a part of a particular development program. When this is worth noting it is because it illustrates the point that · networks ' can be created through conscious efforts within an R&D program and are not exclusively dependent upon ' natural pro­ cesses · between the enterprises themselves. The example demonstrates. furthermore. that networks based purely on joint learning are sufficiently interesting for the enterprises to be willing to put time and effort into the co-operation. This point is shared with Nordvest Forum (Next Chapter) but is still worth noting since it goes against the view that enterprises will never participate in anything that does not have simple and direct business motives. As in the report from the Work Research Institute module, the need to create a seamless relationship between workplace dynamics, hands-on research. and education is stressed. In Norway it is The University of Science and Technology in Trondheim that seems to give most concern to this integration. In fact. although it is located in Oslo the efforts to integrate towards education from the side of the WRI have also largely occurred in the Trondheim environment. A final point to be made here is the remarks made on how to · measure results ' . As has emerged elsewhere. efforts like ED 2000 must live up to require­ ments on results: in terms of their substance as well as in terms of how they are measured and presented. Sometimes this gives rise to discuss ions about 'the measurable ' versus the 'non-measurable' , the ' qualitative ' versus the ·quantita­ tive ' , and the like. All measurements and presentations must. however, occur in a language: a set of concepts and relationships between concepts. No language is a mechanical reflection of reality, no set of concepts and yardsticks for estimating the impact of a given effort an automatic reflection of the situation to be assessed. The specific concepts to be used in a specific assessment need to be assembled and the relationships between them defined. These are active, constructive, efforts. For assessments of results to be credible there must be an agreement on the conceptual apparatus and on the measurement methods. Such an agreement can emerge only on the basis of a discussion where all concerned take part. Since development is by way of becoming a permanent process, the assessment of results is no longer a ' one time ' effort but emerges as a continuous one. Inter-

202

C REATING C ONNECTEDNESS

spersed with the development of goals. visions and actions there wlll be constitu­ tion and assessment of results ln an ongoing process .

Chapter 12

The Nordvest Forum Module ]on Hanssen-Bauer

Introduction I started working with learning networks back In 1 989 while employed by the Norwegian Work Life Center (SBA; Qvale 1 994). One of the very first Initiatives to create such a network came from the Nordvest Forum (NVF). NVF Inc . was just established and was about to launch Its first management training program. NVF needed support to get started. and SBA decided to provide a modest sum of money. The funding was not free. however, and I became part of the deal. which stated that I should follow up the development of the network as advisor and resource person. The tntttatlve Ignited a substantive effort In SBA to both understand what networks are and their potential in the context of organizational change. as well as how they can be constructed and supported 'from outside' . At the same time. the results from the LOM program In Sweden started to become available. We learnt how networks gradually had developed as an Important element In the LOM program, even If at the outset the program was not designed with a view to work through networks. SBA decided early on to make network building a core element of the program, and the staff devoted efforts and thoughts to how to encourage networks to emerge. In several areas of the country we sponsored efforts to build networks that aimed to support organizational change and renewal. One of the first tasks for the SBA staff was to deconstruct the network concept In order to reconstruct it within our own approach. We focused on two main problems: First. how to construct a concept that Is more conducive to creating arenas and Instruments for learning and change than the (in our view) excessively economist view that dominated the Norwegian scene at the time. This view sees no difference between business partnership and networks. and basically portrays the network as a (in my view, poo r) substitute for the value chain. Big money was poured In. trying to

204

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

seduce small enterprises into Joining business networks of three without any view to learning or other social or cultural aspects of the economic endeavor. The second problem consisted of isolating what could be the critical design elements of learning networks tn terms of structure. systems set-up. processes and func­ tions. We needed to know under which conditions ts it likely that viable network initiatives can be developed. and. then, what kind of support ts required and how the construction should be managed. It would go beyond the limits of this note to develop much further even the main lines of the reflections of that tlme. We reviewed our anthropological ancestors and how the network concept developed tn studies of social structure and organization in local communities in Norway in the 1950s. We were influ­ enced by the LOM program, and by the reported successes of the regions in Italy and Silicon Valley. We explored the French idea of creating ' incubators ' and ' innovating areas· . We understood the stgntflcance of the emergent literature on industrial regtonaltzatton and we evaluated the ' Portennanta' reaching our indus­ trialized shores. None of the examples really gave an answer to our baste problem: if you want a network, how do you make it? Early on we published some explorative accounts in Bedre Bee/rift. In two papers we tried to tackle intellectually the two maJn problems reported above, as a guide to prospective network builders (including ourselves) on how to ' do it ' - empirically. To cut the story short. SBA attempted in four or five maJor initiatives to construct learning networks. Few of these actually survived for very long. One initiative proved impossible to get even slightly off the ground. That was in Akershus. close to Oslo. I killed one initiative before it even got off the drawing board because I found the tnttlal conditions to be so unpromtstng. Successes were somewhat better. but not brilliant. in Aust-Agder and Telemark. Nordvest Forum, on the other hand, only gained in vitality and scope (Snow and Hanssen Bauer 1993) . The SBA lessons somehow seemed to contradict the one you could implicitly draw from the descriptions of the LOM networks: while in a LOM network success seemed proportional to researcher input. the SBA network successes seemed inversely proportional to outside input. But in the few SBA cases. the stubborn self-reliance of the NVF dominated the statlstics. Uust for the record: SBA did not have networks as the only core element. Our main way to reflect on the diffusion problem was to reformulate it into redesign of the tnstitutlonal environments of the industries and organizations (Qvale 1 994) . A favorite approach was to redesign the relatlonshtp between education systems and organizations. a theme central to ED 2000 and the reason why we worked to pass on some of the left-over funds from SBA to ED 2000. It would take us much too far to develop this further here. It should also be noted that I am not criticizing the LOM program: rather, I use it as a useful intellectual metaphor or rather as a metonym that sums up one approach that I think could be further enriched.)

THE NORDVEST FORUM MODU LE

205

I have now arrived at the main point: I came to ED 2000 with a great many thoughts, some rather systematic and others In very embryonic form. Among the rather firm beliefs was that learning networks warrant study. not merely as a context for enterprise development. but as social constructs In their own right. Another position taken was that the network should be neither research nor researcher driven, but the research element should be tailored to the needs of the enterprises. The research element should be more 'design' oriented than In the LOM program. and more open to academic cross-fertilization. I also had a concrete problem 'at hand ' : I anticipated that once Nordvest Forum was established and the main processes were up and running. the main challenge would be the renewal of the learning substance of the network. Without such renewal. the network would dissolve Into the achieved successes of being just another provider of management training. This Is what we anticipated In our papers published In Bedre Bedrift In which we described the development cycle of networks. It has been a challenge since then to help manage NVF Into a mature phase where the network Is able to learn as fast as required by the development needs of their most advanced and demanding partners (Hanssen Bauer and Snow 1 996).

The Aims of the Module The first steps leading to the creation of the NVF module were taken as early as 1 992. The network. as I related above. was looking for ways to enhance learning and build capacity. The NVF board bought the idea to hire two doctoral students who could help remold the relationship with the University of Science and Technology (NTNU) . The board also took an Initiative to become a business associate of the IMD In Switzerland. The significance of these two moves was. In my view. that the network would Improve Its ability to take on new ideas and stimuli. and at the same time Increase Its ' In-house' capacity for reinterpreting such ideas In the context of the regional businesses . The students would become reflection partners. They should take problems from the regional businesses Into the teaching arenas of NTNU, and bring Ideas and theoretical reflections back. Because they would be part of the regional business life. being employed by NVF. they would be the students of the network and, therefore. ln a better position to become 'significant others ' In the reflection processes within and across the enterprises than other researchers or academicians. As both NVF and NTNU would have responslblllty for their student careers. a common link and Interest In the teaching of NTNU would be created. As the students would work with and research Into concrete and real problems of their host enterprises. another shared responsibility would develop, I.e. a responsibility for supporting these enterprises

206

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

In finding ways to handle their development challenges. The result should be­ come, In my view and analysts. a learning loop designed to stlmulate second order learning. to use a Batesonlan term. Theoretical design Is one thing: to create the construction In practice Is quite another. NVF and SBA Jointly visited all major Institutions that we could thJnk would be Interested In providing the necessary doctoral scholarships. SBA could fund the start-up, but as the whole program was scheduled to close In 1 993, there was no way for lt to bring the design further. We thought lt would be an easy task to fund two scholarships. but lt turned out to be literally Impossible. Everywhere we ran Into requirements for funding that blocked all options. We managed to get some support from the Research Council of Norway (NFR) . but on a kind of exceptional basis. There was no possibility for public support for NVF as a network. A given enterprise could have obtained support If lt took a student alone. It would be possible for a student at the university to obtain a grant from one of the many different research programs. He or she could then. possibly. use the grant to study enterprises In the region. This would turn the enterprises Into empirical objects of a predeflned research scheme, and they would thus no longer be partners In the project. This lengthy Introduction can be summed up In terms of what I feel are the two major objectives for the Nordvest Forum, one related to the learning effec­ tiveness of Nordvest Forum and one to the more academic Interest In testing empirically how all thJs works: (I) to Improve the structural relationship between academla and the real life of business with an aJm of making academla more sensitive to business life and more appropriate as a real partner In development. on the one hand. and to demonstrate to the local businesses In the region that academic Input from social sciences can be useful in helping to learn faster and to manage change more efficiently; and (2) to test the general model of Inter-enterprise learning in networks that was partly developed earlier In order to be able to make better network designs. In llne with the general requirements of the ED 2000 program. a much more detailed set of objectlves of the Nordvest Forum was developed. These objectlves can be summarized as follows: Strengthened development of regional companies; Increased knowledge about business development In the region and about learning In network: Improved capacity and competence In R&D lnstltutlons for supporting com­ pany development In the region: Train five doctoral students within disciplines of relevance at the University of Science and Technology In Trondhelm and the Norwegian Business School In Bergen.

THE NORDVEST FORUM MODU LE

207

The main method described in our application was to increase the co-operation between regional business and research institutions in Norway and internation­ ally. I should refer the reader to my paper (' Networking to Learn') in the first edited book from the ED 2000 program (Hanssen Bauer 1 998) . This paper develops both the theoretical underpinnings of the design of the module. and the major thinking behind Its design. The core point was to link five doctoral students to five clusters of companies (Table 9) and to mobilize a group of senior researchers to advise the students as well as to do their own research. Nordvest Forum was to be used as arenas for diffusion.

Criteria and Measures of Suc:cess It follows from what has been written so far, that for me personally. the highest priority objectives are to be related to the network Nordvest Forum Itself. It is not necessarily important for the success of the module that all objectives of the participating business firms are met. However, 1t is crucial for the success of the module that the participating companies have engaged in a certain number of development projects that are suitable for reflection and that can become exem­ plary cases for the network learning. This point refers to my argument. developed in the paper ' Networking to Learn'. that the weak point in the network learning cycle of the Nordvest Forum so far had been the lack of good. real life experimen­ tal cases from the region. Such experiments, when described and reflected upon across the participating companies, would help build a local repertoire of cases or knowledge. In order to make this happen. we had to focus on supporting the company development projects and the feedback of the experience back to reflective arenas in the network. This line of argument also applies to the theoretical or the academic research work. We did give priority to the doctoral students, in the sense of allocation of resources (the five actually leave little room for senior researchers) . They are crucial to the long-term success of the work (they provide added competence to the region. they create the arenas for reflection, they work closely with the business firms). At the same time, a substantial part of the senior research resources were spent on creating the central learning arenas of Nordvest Forum, rather than on exploring what happens in the enterprises. I also feel that to reflect on the network constructs during the last part of the program period is of the highest priority. I feel it ts important to insert a short reminder of the general design of the NVF module as it was described In the application. and. thereby. has become an accepted part of the contract between the module and the Program: The Nordvest Forum module differs from all the rest of the modules in the fact that it is not an academic Institution that is the contract holder. but the network as represented by

208

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

NVF Inc. and Its board. This point was a subject for discussion In the Program board In the begin­ ning. The Program board wanted a stronger link to research. preferably an Institution In the region. This turned out to be difficult to achieve for a number of reasons, one of them that there was no regional R&D Institution with the requisite resources and Interest. Therefore. the module has a network design on three levels: first. normally several enterprises co-operate In being the host of a doctoral student. Second, the module mobilizes several senior researchers from four academic Institutions that serve the module by reflecting on the same empirical field. Third, the network Itself Is used to build the learning arenas and becomes the development organization of the module.

What Have We Achieved? A Critical Self-assesm s ent Again on a personal note, I shall describe what I think we have achieved In the following terms. I must Insist on the fact that much of the work has not been really completed and Is therefore not really easy to evaluate. Three of the doctoral students have not yet completed their studies. The main reports and papers have not yet been published, but are due for publication In the year 2000. The critical test of our achievement Is the long-term survival of the network and whether the network manages to develop Itself to serve the local businesses In an effective manner. Strengthened development of regional companies

The module has very good results In three of the clusters of companies, while they are more uncertain for two others. The three are the furniture producers Ekornes/ Stokke, Mare Trafo/Marefly/Ulsteln Hotel. and Glamox!Moxy. Ekomes In par­ ticular has achieved extraordinary results over the last five years. but they are, of course. not a result merely of the efforts of the module. Table 9 surveys the focus of activities and results In the five clusters of companies. The first two clusters started their work early. as the doctoral students were recruited before the start-up of the ED 2000 program. The next three clusters (3- 5) were started during the functioning of the module and work Is not yet completed. The doctoral students will only finish their studies and hence their doctoral dissertations and publication of the cases after the closure of the program (probably In 200 1 ). The reader should note that the use of the experience In cases does not depend on the academic reporting of the students only. as managers of the companies are active In the activities of the NVF.

THE NORDVEST FORUM MODULE

209

Table 9. Activities and results in the Narrlvest Famm enterprises Company

Developments

Ekornts

-Almost out of business In 1990. very soUd economy today. High percentage of production is exported to a competitive and global market - Innovative production philosophy has attracted bUenwdional attention - Holistic view on the value chain: bask chanse In production philosophy. both In terms of relations to a1stomers and supplien. and In terms of bUemal org;mlzation. product lines and product design. - Broad participation In the developmmt wortt. the results have deqJ Impact on earnings. productivity and working patterns. - High degree of direct participation In development work and In resulting patterns of

(Cluster 1) Fumlblre

work.

Stakkl Group (Cluster 1)

Fumlbu-e

ManOy (Cluster 2)

Air transport (hellcopten, ambulances. chaner)

Research and pubUatJon Experience used to develop

concept of

Demand chain

management. Reference case lntemaUonally. known thorugh descriptions In Harvarcl Business Review, Financial Times and In business

p1bllcations in a series of countries, pubUshed In cooperaUon with IMD (Vollmann et al. 1995). Doctoral dissertation to be defended In I ggg_ Regular cue In NVF sessions. Developed new activity In NVF 'Production Fonun', strengthened relations to IMD .

- Emphasis on design. product development and innovation as competitive edge. - Strategy of becoming product leader as opposed to the E.komes strategy of being best In production. Both strategies and similar seographical and ownership sihJatlons have proved to be highly competitive on International markets. but they result In dlfTenences In approaches to dJstributions. production, organization of the concerns, to competence development. pidclpation and work.lng envlronmenL

Doctoral disset'illJon to be defended In I ggg_ Cue In NVF sessions.. Contributed to the development of the NVF 'Production Fon 1m

- Developed a system for total quaUty management, changed from traditional organization to advanced mautx with dramatically Improved participation. deflnlte Improvements In productivity (probably best productivity In the air­ carrier sector In Norway).

Doctoral dissertation defended In 1998. Much used as case and reference in NVF

'_

.

- Take-over by HeUkoptenervtce p1t an end to developmmt work and the relation to NVF Module.

Mlln Trafo (Cluster 2)

- Innovative In the region on competence development -Developed total quaUty management system and continuous Improvement processes. Manufacture - Strusgllns still with main strategic choke of transformer between focus customer adapcation (unit base) n. statJons standardization and optimization of production system (series based).

Doctoral dissertation defended In 1998. Much used case and reference In NVF. In particular as example of haw to Implement participatory development processes.

Ubtlln Hotel - Very significant chanse In operational concept In (Cluster 2) relation to extension of hotel.

Doctoral dissertation defended In 1998.

- Development of total quality mill\il8ement system and continuous Improvement processes.

2 10

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS

Company

Developments

Hotel and conferena5

benchmarktng against other hotels. - Established rww forms of participation.

Clulox

- An Initial search conference resulted In a series of

Doctoral dissertation to be defended In year 2000 I (?) Case for senior researcher projects In the Module. Extensively used case In NVF.

- An Initial search conference resulted In a series of

Doctoral dissertation to be defended In year 2001 Case for senior research projects of the Module Much used case In NVF. partlaalarly to understand product development as managed by the Japanese owners.

Fadoria

(Cluster 3)

Manufacbare of lighting and heating equipment

Moxy Truc:b

development projects focused on Integrating the developments of products. processes and administration and control systems. - Internationally advanced In development of floworiented production philosophy: reduced deUvery time from 4 weeks to 1 day In one company of the consolklated group (pilot case). - The production philosophy and the new organizational forms are being disseminated from pUot case to the other factories in the group. - Worit envirorunent award In 1995. - Development processes based on direct pardcipatlon.

efforts to Improve the organization of the (Cluster 3) production. So far, success has been Umlted. Production of - Competitive In Internationally difficult market. heavy. Had for some years an international giant as owner (Komatsu) which gave aca5s to new articulated dumpers networks and competences (product development). -

Research and pubUcation

- The cooperation has mostly been focused on development of i nternational strategy and entry to Croup (Cluster 4) new markets. as well as development of partneBhips up- and downstream. vertical Ship and ship equipment networks. - The Group has recently been sold to new foreign owners. the future co-operation Is uncertain.

Doctoral dissertation to be defended In year 2001. Case for senior researcher projects. Various companies in the Group are much used as cases in NVF.

o-stlln Croup

Doctoral dissertation to be defended In year 2001. Important potential as a case for NVF In its strategy to strengthen its relevance for the fish-producing industry.

Ullteln

(Cluster 5)

Fish and seafood

-Long-term strategy process: gradual divlsJonallzation of the Group. modernization of the production processes. Tbe Group Is changing from family owned and governed to more professional management (new owners. managen recruited on the bas.ls of formal quallflcations, fonnallzatlon of admJnlstrative and management systems, formalization of participation). - Vertical integration ongoing.

Reference Is made to earUer descriptions of the companies, see e.g. Hanssen Bauer 1998. All In all, the five clustes cover 52 individual companies organiD!d within the Groups. These had in I 996 more than 6000 employees and a total turnover of more than NOK 7 billion (USD 1 bn).

THE NORDVEST FORUM MODU LE

21 1

There are some uncertainties related to the overall evaluation of the company development projects. First, we have experienced a series of structural changes, such as takeovers. buyouts, management changes. and others. that have changed the possibilities for working with these companies. By way of example. the MBrefly company ceased to exist before our work with them was really com­ pleted. The Stokke Company bought up one of our partner companies, MBre MBbler. but the co-operation continued with the new group. The Ulstein Group has just been sold and the impact of this is not yet clear. There are major changes going on in Glamox and Moxy. Second, in our experience. the time needed to fulfill the doctoral program, with the heavy workload and expectations placed on the doctoral students, tends to be slightly longer than anticipated. In addition. normal unanticipated events occur, like leaves of absence and other things. that also make it impossible to finish the doctoral program within the time limit of the ED 2000 program (we also needed six months to recruit the students) . One of the students is actually workJng full time in Glamox, as he was so useful to the company in their strategic development projects that they offered him a full time Job for a year. Third. the value of the company cases for the senior researcher projects can only be fully evaluated when the publication program of the module is completed in year 2000. So far, the output seems promising. Increased knowledge about business development in the region and learning in networks As stated earlier, our focus has not been on changing the normal flow of develop­

ment work in the companies into any kind of pre-deflned development structure, but to strengthen ongoing activities. This means that we have not insisted upon. as a contractual prerequisite. that a development organization be established. that they should start development work with conferenctng methods. and suchlike. We have stressed participatlon and involvement. and in particular the need to involve the trades unions and the management structure. It has been important to respect the company priorities (as requested by the board of the NVF Inc.) . This strategy may have resulted in lower returns. in terms of development successes (though I seriously doubt that) . But it definitely contributed to a better grasp of how the advanced part of the regional industry is engaging in develop­ ment work based on the general models and ideas that the managers of the region take in from outside and develop into their own ways of doing business . This way, the value of the cases for the development of the NVF has improved. Now the managers of the companies can relate their experience as their own into the seminars and meetlngs of the network - and not as an experience with a · foreign · model.

212

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

Also. the region and its business life have definitely been put on the teaching agenda of the academic institutions involved. It has led to an increased interest, in research terms, from both Bergen and Trondheim. and it has strengthened the work by Moreforskning on the region ' s business life. My own very personal feeling is that the value of the company work is very high for the companies and for the NVF. Another aspect, one related to the research agenda, seems to me somewhat less promising: I wanted the cases to trace empirically how learning from the network was transformed into new practice in the companies. Such documentation would have been useful for the development and verification of the general network learning model. This seems to have happened to a lesser extent than anticipated, for many good reasons. Therefore, we shall launch a specific activity in the second half of 1 999 to obtain better empirical evidence of such learning. As the activity still lies in the future. I cannot tell if it will be successful. But we shall certainly design a more specific research method to chase the evidence more efficiently than before (semi-struc­ tured interviews and focus groups with carefully selected key informants in the case companies) . Improved capacity and competence in R&D institutions for supporting company development in the region

On this objective, we have had mixed success so far. The University of Science and Technology has been very forthcoming in setting up infrastructure and logistics that suits the requirements of the participating businesses, and the input from this University has certainly increased and improved. I have some doubts as to how deep into the University structure these changes are going as yet, but I think that what could be achieved has been taken out by the Module. When it comes to the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Admin­ istration in Bergen, the situation is different. Here it has been very difficult to alter the standard educational program and curriculum to suit the needs of the two doctoral students and their work with the companies. This has led to occasional tensions between the companies and the students ' academic advisors. The stu­ dents have had to follow an educational program that made participation in the company projects less easy than for those following the curriculum at Trondheim. It also became clear that the research tradition in Bergen is less conducive to the active participation that was needed in the Module. My feeling is that the impact here has been relatively slight. even though the access to teaching resources for NVF from Bergen on very important topics for the network (e.g. on strategy) has improved. It is still somewhat uncertain as to whether the involvement by Moreforskning has changed or improved very much as a result of the Module. The resources that

THE NORDVEST FORUM MODU LE

213

were made available were probably too llmlted to have any real impact. Without EO 2000. Fafo and myself would have had no way to contlnue the active involvement in the development of NVF and the regional business. Given my other engagements and roles. I would have had to discontinue my work with the network and the region. NVF has also used the EO 2000 program to approach other regional educational institutions. but there has been little Interest from their side. Train five doctoral students within dlsclpllnes of relevance at the University of Trondhelm and the School of Economics and Business Admlnlstratlon Jn Bergen

I refer the reader to what has been said above. Two students have basically finished. three others are on the way. I feel relatively certain that at least two of these three will successfully complete their doctoral program. As to the third. my uncertainties stem from his close involvement with the companies. which may postpone his academic career for a long time. This means that he has become a very valuable resource for development work in the region. but he may be lost to science. If this is actually bad or good, I cannot really decide. A few additional remarks on the research or scJenUfic output

In my personal account above. I stated that I had concrete intentions concerning my engagement with the Module. and that these intentions also covered research or theoretical ambitions. To what extent have we succeeded? I am relatively satisfied. but it is still too early to really tell. First. the EO 2000 module helped me develop a general model of the network learning cycle that was publlshed in OrganJzaUon Science (Hanssen Bauer and Snow 1 996) . Certainly. part of the reflection and some of the empirical data preceded the Module. but I obtained space to wrtte it all up and to publish it. Second. the Module enabled me to proceed on these llnes of thought into a published description of the theoretical underpinnings of the whole module design ( ' Networking to Learn'). Third. the most important output will be the 'network publication' of the program. which is currently in the planning and writing stage. This boo k will reflect on all the network constructions of the EO 2000 program and, therefore. will hopefully be a valuable contribution to our understanding of these networks in today' s Norway. The senior researcher projects will all result in various publications. As they are not yet all written, it is difficult to estlmate their scientific value. However, they wlll certainly be different from one another. Some of them will reflect on core problems of development in the region. like the problem of Implementation strategy of development projects. Others will reflect on the relations between company development and the public support programs. My feeling is that the

214

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

broad spectrum of problems covered is valuable. On the other hand, I also feel that we probably underestimated the resources needed for senior research on the module. and that the resources were spread out too thinly over too many research­ ers. The impact and output are satlsfactory in relation to the input. but less than what I really would have wanted to see . Also. it should be noted that the senior researcher network consisted of researcher and research institutions that had no or very little previous tradition of co-operation. This. added to the limited part of each researcher's time that was actually devoted to the module. created a certain feeling of disparateness of the effort. The module planned to host an annual conference with invited foreign resource persons. ThJs was done twice. but not to the full extent planned. The main reason for this failure was that the module did not produce sufficient academic output to really defend a yearly conference. and we experienced diffi­ culty in finding suitable persons to invite (they should be interesting to all the researchers) . We also faced problems in gathering the research group as fre­ quently as planned. as they were busy persons having the NVF module on their agenda only 1-2 months in a year. The closing period of the module will see a series of new conferences that may bring the total number close to the one planned, however.

Evaluation of the Overall Achievement of the Nonlvest-Forum Network As has been stated several times above. the focus of the NVF module revolves around the network construction itself. It is here that the real output of the module should be evaluated. Did the ED 2000 module work contribute to the long-term survival and renewal of the NVF network? Several remarks can be made in this regard. First, the network survived its first-generation crisis. The founder of the network left, and it was possible to establish a new management by recruiting one of the doctoral students. Second, the module has led to a renewal of the professional content of the work in the network. Production strategies have been put more firmly on the agenda, and the available competence placed at the disposal of the companies has · deepened · significantly. Production Forum has been established. the content of the Management of Change Program has been redesigned; the teaching of busi­ ness strategy has been improved. Third. the availabtltty of good local cases has dramatically increased. Fourth, the NVF development arenas have been generally strengthened. A quite new arena of great importance was the creation of the training program for trade union leaders. NVF took the initiative and hosted the first training program,

THE NORDVEST FORUM MODU LE

215

with very positive support by the managers of the companies concerned. The program was evaluated and proved to be successful. Thereafter. the model has been extended to cover the other modules in the ED 2000 program. Fifth. the network of resource persons available to NVF has increased In size and in themes covered. This includes. of course. the relations with the academic institutions directly Involved in the Module work. But in addttlon. as a side effect of sending the doctoral students on a semester' s visit to Institutions abroad, relations with relevant institutions In Switzerland, the US and England have been established. Sixth, the module has made it possible to bring business development more into the core of NVF and thus helped avoid turning NVF Inc. into a machine for delivering management courses. The ED 2000 program has lead to a wide exposure of the NVF to the external work as a good example of a regional learning network, and this has reinforced the Internal identification with and understanding of the network as such. There is no doubt In my mind that the module has contributed positively to the survival of the network. It has strengthened the understanding by the network participants of the need to malntaJn a strategic partnership with research within the social fields.

The Nordvest Forum Module In the ED 2000 Program My baste answer to the question of whether the NVF module has contributed to the ED 2000 program' s objectives. Is 'yes ' . At the same time. I feel this Is a question that others should evaluate. probably at a later stage. We have brought companies to the program: we have developed an exemplary development coali­ tion that can be used for reflection: we have seriously tried to link up company development problems and research Institutions. We are also bringing the ED 2000 program to one of the most important Industrial regions in Norway. one that does not normally enjoy a great presence in this kind of program. We are taking care of one of the core subjects of the overall reporting and publication. regarding networking and development coalitions. Even If I do not yet feel convinced that the publication will become an excellent book . we are certainly giving it a serious try. Another main object of the program is concerned with employee participa­ tion. Participation by unions and employees In development work has been strengthened in several ways through the module. First. through the doctoral students. who have Introduced and reinforced partlctpattve strategies and metods of work into their host companies. about half of them have e.g. engaged in search conferences with broad participation as part of their development efforts. Not all

216

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

the companies have been very receptive or eager to use partlclpatlve strategies, however. At least two of the students also made participation a core subject of their dissertation work. Second, the module has Introduced a new competence development program for local union representatives In the region. focusing on the role of union representatives as partners In enterprise development, and on building networks between them which supplemented networks between manag­ ers. This program. In a revised version, was also later Implemented In other ED 2000 modules. The module Is stlll working to make the program a regular network activity. Third, senior researchers In the module have put participation on the agenda In various ways as part of their contribution to the management program, and as part of their research agenda. Quite another question could be what we feel about the co-operation be­ tween the program and the module. I don' t know If this Is the place to go Into this, but the area has been one of serious concern at tlmes. First, we often felt that the program board had disparate and even confllctlng views on core Issues. At times, we have received disturbingly contradictory signals from different partners In the program, or the program board has been disturbingly silent, giving no feedback or signals. This has prepared the ground for frequent rumors about how this and that module or actlvlty was ' really' evaluated. Second. we often felt that administra­ tive chores were Imposed on us at very short notice. and these tended to overtake our research agenda. This was probably more of a problem for the NVF module than for others, as all core persons worked for a small part of their time on the ED 2000 related work. Third, the program-level meetings were not always very stlmulatlng. Being almost entirely dedicated to administrative Issues, they seemed to be a waste of time. Fourth. we were forced to Invest a huge amount of work In poorly planned and coordinated benchmarking efforts that apparently gave very meager results In all respects. The co-operatlon has Improved over the last year. but we still think the program could fare better. Be all this as it may, the ED 2000 program has been a necessary one. I belelve that without this program. the whole research area covered would be endangered. There are few R&D Institutions In Norway that are actively engaging In company Issues of the kind covered by the program. The program has enabled us, the Interested researchers, to further build coalitions that we believe are Important for the future of Norwegian companies. As a result of this, ED 2000 Issues have been put on the development agenda of Fafo. for Instance. Fafo, as a research Institute. will explore means and ways of taking these Issues more Into our strategic core. We also export central program Ideas to other countries where we are working (e.g. Botswana) . and Ideas and models are gradually diffusing Into other projects.

THE NORDVEST FORUM MODU LE

217

Editorial Highlights When Nordvest-Forum first emerged, around 1 990, it broke, In a number of ways. with views that were quite widespread at the time, In particular that enterprises would not be willing to put efforts Into co-operation unless there were clear outcomes measurable In traditional business terms. Inasmuch as networking had gained a place on the agenda, it was commonly assumed that the networking would have to be anchored In a conventional value-creation chain, such as a common Interest In cheaper supplies, the penetration of new markets, and similar. In contrast to this, NVF emerged as what can be called a ' pure ' learning network, with members from different types of enterprises joining forces to create a new program for development of managerial and leadership resources In the region. This part of the Norwegian coast has for a long time had a number of thriving Industrial communities and enterprises. It was felt that continued growth de­ manded more qualified human resources and the Idea was to develop these resources within the region rather than buy them from some outside · market· . The fact that the number of owners has grown from about 20 to about 50. and the number of users to about 1 50, Indicates a fair degree of success over these 1 0 years. The Issues or themes Involved have successively been expanded until they cover all main aspects of organization development and Inter-enterprise network­ Ing. The Interesting question, of course. Is what the enterprises learn from this co­ operation: what, so to speak. Is the driving force behind the continued user commitment. Rather than look at each other. should not these enterprises on the Northwestern coast of Norway look at the International scene to learn from the great global actors? Obviously. the great global actors are not lnslgnlflcant. The question. how­ ever, Is how to learn from them: how to relate to whatever trends and challenges they may create. In the report it Is stated - In line with a similar point from the Rogaland module - that a learning process needs local cases. For practical actors to learn things of practical relevance the learning must be anchored In something that Is ' available ' as practices - and not purely as abstractions or 'theory ' . For a case to be accessible In this way it must be · present' In a social sense of the term. However, one might Imagine that as soon as 'a case ' - reflecting ' best practices ' within. say. quality management - had been established. the point would be for all the others to copy this case. As and when they had done this, there would be little need for continued co-operation unless some other theme could be put on the agenda. That the NVF enterprises continue to work together Indicates that the learning process Is much more complex. In the use of local cases they do not only ' copy ' . Rather. they use them as sources of Ideas, points. reminders. and the like. Sometimes they copy. In other cases they do something different. Doing something different. however. does not mean that no learning has taken place.

218

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

Learning In a network has much more to do with picking up differentiated Impulses from each other than it has to do with diffusing one single message. If the point was to diffuse one single message. all enterprises would, after a while, be copies of each other and no further learning could take place. Rather. a strong element of difference must be present all the time to provide for a context that Is sufficiently rich In Impulses. The point that the enterprises within the network tend to form smaller groups when embarking on a specific process of development Indicates that the network as a whole functions as possible offerings of partnerships. When an enterprise wants to find partners In a specific process it can choose between a number of posstbtlttles. Through this, the network comes to function on several levels. as the report points out. It Is not one single set of relationships but rather several layers of relationships. While drawing strongly on Internal sources. the NVF also has a strong lnternatlonal ortentatlon. This Is not an either - or. Rather, the point Is that learning processes need to 'start' locally but when they have developed a certain momentum and a certain level of competence among the participants it Is reason­ able to turn outwards. It seems clear that NVF offers Its members much better opportunities for lntemattonaltztng their learning processes than would have been possible for each single (generally small) enterprise alone. While the other networks participating In ED 2000 can be seen as partners In co-operation with research. NVF. with Its own development company and Us own central office. Is more of a knowledge broker In Itself. While seeking partners and Impulses from outside. NVF Is moving towards working with different partners, not only over time but even at one and the same tlme, since a substantial number of projects and other developments are going on. demanding different Inputs. This network has consequently given rise to the problem of how to combine a flexible use of external resources with a stable regional organization and reason­ able growth opportunities for research. In a sharp form. As emerges from the report. this has given rise to some discuss ion between the program bodies and the NVF actors. but there Is also reason to argue that mutually acceptable compro­ mises have been worked out.

Chapter 13

The Fafo-NHH Mod ule Tom Colbj"rnsen and Eivind Falkum

Goals This module Is a joint one Involving The Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration In Bergen (NHH) and the Trade Union Research Insti­ tute (Fafo) In Oslo. The overall goal of the module was creation of knowledge to be applied In enterprise development, focusing co-operation In and between enterprises.

Research Goals Communication and co-operation between companies, and employee participa­ tion and eo-determination. are supposed to have an Impact on business perfor­ mance and results. Two general hypotheses were specified for the purpose of combining and directing the various research projects within the module: patterns of communication and co-operation between companies are corre­ lated with value creation and value waste In each company: patterns of employee participation and eo-determination are correlated with value creation and value waste. These hypotheses were based on previous research and transformed Into a per­ spective that guided both theoretical and methodological approaches to the field of enterprise development. None of us had any specific experience within action research (taken In a strict sense. Involving the researchers directly In, and commit­ ting them to the development processes) . and none of us were Involved In any ongoing Internal business development processes when Enterprise development 2000 was launched In 1 995 . The second hypothesis was later developed Into two guiding questions: How can the patterns of employee participation and eo-determination be

220

CREATING CONNECTEDNESS developed to be consistent with modem and more flexible notions and concepts of business organization? How can patterns of employee parttctpatlon and eo-determination In Norwe­ gian companies be developed to support value creation and mtntmlze value waste?

Within this scope of research the following goals were outlined. Theories should contribute to the understanding of relations between co-operation and value creation processes. Methods should Integrate research and development activities In firms. Data I Information: data should be collected at the enterprise level. Educational: five doctoral degrees and three master's degrees (sociology) should be produced. Publications: approximately ten public reports/articles and 30 company Internal reports should be produced Enterprise Goals

The researchers were Involved In different problem solving processes In the firms, focusing different alms at different levels of business. These are catego­ rized as follows. To Improve communication between headquarters and subsidiaries In order tu.

Improve business results; reduce unnecessary competition between corporate units: expand market shares: provide professional co-operation In development of new products I produc­ tion processes; reach goal consensus and shared visions. Reduce costs by reallocation of tasks. Develop employee-management-co-operation In order ta.

Improve work organization and working conditions: Improve productivity and business performance: Improve management and employee relations; reduce accidents. damage and sick leave: be more Innovative. A general goal ts to contribute to the ongoing debate on industrial relations, both academic and In practice. We were supposed. and tried hard, to merge the perspectives and experiences of Norwegian School of Economics and Business

THE FAFO - NH H MODULE

221

Administration with the perspectives and experiences of the Trade Union Insti­ tute for Applied Social Sciences, both theoretical, methodological and In empiri­ cal studies and Implementation of business development. To some extent we succeeded. but available resources In the program prohibited a further develop­ ment In that direction.

Some Reflectiom Both research and company goals In the module have been developed In co­ operation between researchers and companies. A mutual understanding of respec­ tive goals and Interests of researchers and companies has been a framework for establishing the different projects. Sometimes the companies proposed projects that were of no Interest to the researchers, and therefore rejected. In the same way the researchers sometimes proposed studies and development Issues that were rejected by the companies. Implementation of Ideas, studies and development projects are based on agreements reached by dialogues, negotiations and Involve­ ment of company management. employee representatives and the researchers. During the program, some of the companies merged with others, or went through other types of restructuring Involving staff changes. Corporations re­ structured their subsidiaries, closing down some units, merging others, and divid­ Ing some Into several different or new activities. Company attention was from time to Ume concentrated on these processes more than the co-operation with the research team. Some corporations withdrew from the module as a result of such changes. We found that a fruitful dialogue with the enterprises depended heavily on building strong relations with specific persons. When our contacts left the firm or got other Jobs the dialogue was severely weakened, and In one Instance totally aborted. The companies ' goals, strategies and structural settings were changed, and previously defined development Issues were no longer of any relevance. Handling such situations has been a major problem In the module, making continuity difficult. Some of the companies have participated In the module only to solve specific problems, requiring access to researchers for a short period only. Two of the enterprises have been participants all the way through. and still wish to continue. In the turbulence of corporate development, the Issue of ordering goals by Importance Is difficult. It has been necessary to be flexible and allow for adjust­ ments In the topics on which we focus. Nevertheless , we claimed that all activities should be relevant to the baste hypotheses outlined above. Our research goals have been more persistent than the those of the compa­ nies. To fulfil the research goals In a setting where company aims are changing. the availability and use of a wide range of research methods Is crucial. An ability

222

CREATING CONNEC TEDNESS

to change research strategy and methodological approach is mandatory when the objects of the studies are changing, and there is a need to transform focus from one field of development to another. If not. the goals of research will be redefined by the change of business goals, often unintended. and sometimes even uncon­ sciously. Sticking to our basic goals, and maintaining attention on these in a rapidly changing environment. has probably been the most important challenge to the researchers during EO 2000. Cr/Ucal success factors for research:

New perspectives. findings and analyses of employee participation and codetermination in enterprise development. Provoking and contributing to the ongoing debate on - and perceptions of industrial relations. Development of new research methods by involvement of managers and employee representatives in the research process. Fulfilling the educational and publication goals of the module. Cr/Ucal success factors for the enterprises:

New perspectives on enterprise development in the companies: ability to define and solve problems quicker than before. New perspectives on employee participation and management in the compa­ nies. Change in systems of co-operation between employees and management. Change in attitudes and behavior concerning management - employee relations in the companies and their development processes. Change in co-operation between different departments I business units in companies and corporations. Increased understanding of applicability of social research in the companies. Although our research should aim at contributing to increased value creation in firms, we could not agree to their using short-term economic results or other bottom line-indicators in the firms as success criteria. First, such measures are influenced by a large number of factors outside the control of the research projects. Second. the influence of the research contributions on value creation in the enterprises will be evident only after some time.

Critical Remarks on Our Own Module PosJtJve

Goals of academic performance and contributions. including academic de­ grees, will be attained.

THE FAFO - NH H MODULE

223

Management and employee representatives attitudes and behavlor are changed In the companies. Employees are Involved In strategic processes , In some of the companies for the first time. Systems of management - employee relations and systems of management - employee co-operation have changed (Improved) . with new strategies, new ways of handling problems, reorganJzatlon of work processes and work organization being some of the results. Much more attention Is paid to Issues of co-operation. We have contributed to Increased understanding of how employee participa­ tion systems can be fruitfully Integrated with new and more flexible forms of corporate organization. Business performance seems to have Improved by development of new strategies for management -employee co-operation. New methods and research I business development reasoning have been developed. Research results In the companies sometimes speeded up ongoing develop­ ment much more than expected. Neutrality In management and employee relations was an Important part of the research strategy. We followed this strategy strictly. successfully giving us necessary trust and legitimacy by both parties. Negative

The research team has been too small. With eight research-man-years avail­ able at the most, our contrlbutlon to the development of corporations with 3000 employees each Is quite limited when it comes to direct Involvement. Our Impact on the companies Is difficult to Identify and Impossible to measure In exact figures In comparison to all other variables affecting business processe s. The co-operation between the two research groups, one In Bergen and one In Oslo. was weakened after four years. The resources available for the module and the geographical distance made lt difficult to develop necessary and systematic theoretlcal, methodological and empirical perspectives and ap­ proaches. The expectations of this co-operation within the Board of ED 2000 do not correspond to the resources that were allocated to the module. Our perspectlves. approaches and proposals seemed to tempt many compa­ nies, but some of them dropped out after a while. We spent far too much time attempting to build development coalitions with only superficially Interested companies. Internal company conflicts sometimes slowed down. and even reversed, organization development. Progress In research depended entirely on com­ pany decisions, and our more or less unspoken · no Intervention approach· therefore slowed the processes. Only when Invited by development stake-

224

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS holders In the companies did we Intervene In conflicts, with the agreement of both parties In a conflict. In large corporations a small research group will always be outnumbered. having no possibility to restart or accelerate processes ruled by company parties. The small number of development coalitions In the module does not allow generalizations to be made to the extent demanded by scientific rules. Our research strategies and perspectives were designed for module purposes. and made 1t difficult to compare results with results In other modules In ED 2000. The exchange of perspectlves and experiences across modules has been more or less absent. except one conference arranged by the ED 2000 pro­ gram. Neither time. nor resources In general. have allowed co-operation between researchers across module boundaries. The NHH part of the module tried to develop a synergy between the academic and consulting groups of the organization. This attempt was not successful, as 1t turned out that research and consulting have such different logics of operation that lt was hard to extract synergles. A continuous challenge In this type of research Is to clarify the research role. In particular. we often felt that the expectations from the companies were that we should act as consultants. This made lt hard to find sufficient time to reflect on the findings In such a way that they could be generalized Into new understandlngs and concepts that could stimulate others than the firms Involved.

The module (researchers and companies) contributes to fulfillment of the overall aim of ED 2000 by: Building. applying and providing knowledge about strategies, methods and Infrastructure necessary to develop companies, corporatlons and Industrial relations. The module (researchers and companies) contributions to sub-goals In ED 2000 by: Establishing and Improving development coalitions In the partlclpatlng com­ panies and corporations. Delivering research results on patterns of cross company co-operation In corporatlons. Developing new ways of practlclng ' the Norwegian model ' of co-operation In companies and corporations.

Recommendations for Future Program Design The endurance of the program has been necessary to develop dialogues. mutual understanding and co-operatlons between researchers and companies. A shorter

THE FAFO - NH H MODULE

225

period would probably have reduced the outcome on all levels of the program. Getting to know about business performance and corporate development has been very useful, expanding the scope. focus and perspectives of our research. Hopefully the established relations between researchers and companies will continue more permanently. Being part of ED 2000 has been useful In terms of status and legitimacy recognised by companies. corporations and Industrial relations. K'hat could have been different?

The participating companies are not yet wllllng to pay the actual costs of the research provided. due to attitude more than experience. Publlc economic support will nevertheless be necessary to maintain the scientific Integrity of the research­ ers. However. If the companies has assumed greater share of costs. 1t would probably have strengthened their commitments to the different projects. The budget of ED 2000 has either been far too small. or allocated to too many groups. The budget In each module has not allowed for co-operation between researchers working on the same Issues I themes, but In different modules. The program has not encouraged such co-operation. either strategic or economic. The concept of a research Infrastructure consisting of the different modules Is more or less a fiction. Fafo and NHH were more or less forced to establlsh a shared module by the board of ED 2000 as a condition for taking part In the program. This was a challenge to both Institutes, one that was successfully solved to some extent. Future attempts to merge different scientific approaches should take notice of the following recommendations. Co-operation between different research groups/Institutes demands: 1. Time to explore equalltles and differences In theoretical traditions and per­ spectives, methods In use and experience In empirical work In depth. 2. Resources to develop and share Ideas. Identification of problems of Interest, complementary knowledge and synergles among all researchers Involved. 3. Resources to explore the empirical fields together and share and exchange understanding of facts. 4. Resources to do analysis together. catching up with state of the art In the field of Interest In each group. Together, Fafo and NHH were given the same budget as other single Institutes alone. This gave a small a chance to succeed completely In our efforts to capture the available synergles. The ED 2000 beliefs In networks between participating firms as vehicle for business development have been hard to Implement In our module. The compa­ nies In our module show little Interest In participating In such activities. On the

226

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

contrary, they seem to develop a perspective of diversity. fragmentation and demands for local solutions to local problems. Such attitudes among the firms have made 1t Impossible to meet the constantly repeated demands for network activities from the ED 2000 board. The scope of ED 2000 has been too narrow, focusing too much on previous traditions In company oriented social research. and focusing too one-sldedly on case and action research methods. The advantage Is In-depth understanding of development processes In the companies Involved, but generalizations become almost Impossible. Therefore, we fear that the program wlll have small effect on the debate on and development of Industrial relations and corporate development of Norwegian firms. however useful the program may have been for the firms that have actually been Involved.

Recommendations for Future Research and Development 1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

Combine micro and macro studies; bulldlng specific development programs on generallzed knowledge about branches, regions. nations and so on. The combination would allow for comparative analysis of companies, branches etc. In addition to specific development projects In companies. corporations or networks. Include both publlc and private economic sectors. Encourage diversity and plurallsm In theoretical approaches, methods and fields of study and development. Aim at bulldlng a working network of research dlsclpllnes and Institutes. setting up optimum research groups and competence for each Identified problem to be solved, regardless of the Institutional afflllation of researchers. Participating Institutes should bulld a quallty assurance group to design routines and follow up activities. Societal results should be as Important as results on company level. A users ' Interest group should be establlshed, consisting of representatives of all groups of participants. The avaJlable resources should be ten times the budgets of EO 2000 .

For the time being, we are not prepared to draw any maJn research conclusions. As Is known. we are In the midst of the final analysis, supposed to be finished by the end of 1 999. Some of the scientific work wlll be prolonged to year 2000, two or three of the doctoral analyses Included. Results are/wlll be reported according to the following Ust, giving a clue to the contents In the final reports. Business environments should be focused as premises for enterprise devel­ opment. The ongoing globallzatlon and lnternatlonallzatlon of economies are held to be the driving force In the growth of national economics. The problems

THE FAFO - NH H MODULE

227

and challenges to business performance and organizational development see m to be Innumerable. These ongoing processes challenge Industrial relations In general, and espe­ cially the traditional model of management - employee relations In working life In Norway. If a new program Is to make a real difference. International comparisons should be a required part of research and development activities. Instltutionallzatlon of super-standards such as I SO 90 1 4 seems to be becom­ Ing a reality. Companies are looking ever more similar throughout the world. More questions should be asked about how such super-standards are developed. what scientific arguments they are based on. how they become Institutionalized and how they affect business and enterprise development on a national level. How do they fit In national polltlcal, economic and cultural contexts? Do they lead to diversity or specialization In national Industries? Answers to such ques­ tions are crucial If we are to understand, and maybe forecast future development of enterprises and business environments. Education Is a hot Issue. More concern Is given to the growing mismatch between the needs of knowledge In industrial production. and the skills and knowledge produced by the education system. The different types of skills and knowledge available In the population are parts of the framework for enterprise development, and should be studied as such. The themes above are to be studied and analyzed on a macro level. Com­ pany-level data could be aggregated for such purposes. In addition to data from surveys and national secondary sources. To understand how the problems and challenges mentioned above are dealt with at an organizational level. research should be linked to development pro­ cesses not only In private enterprises. but also In the public sector. The core idea wlll be to draw the picture of systems and structures that llnk national. regional and Industrial growth together with development processes In enterprises and public agencies. and vice versa. The next step would be to see how these pictures could explain change and differences In economic growth, employment rates, Innovation rates, diversification and so on.

Editorial Highlights As noted In the report, this module was clearly hard hit by the narrow funding

base of the program, for several reasons. The module was not only based on two different Institutions, these two Institutions were. In addition. located geographi­ cally at a distance In. respectively. Bergen and Oslo. Second, the primary partners came to be relatively large enterprises - by Norwegian standards at least generally with several thousand employees and a corresponding complexity of,

228

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

for instance. internal organization. Third. the researchers set up a relatively clearly structured framework for the research contributlons, to which they wanted to stick even at the expense of a certain element of turbulence in the enterprise relationships. In principle. the researchers also want a stronger link to more descriptive-analytic mesa and macro oriented research. This notwithstanding, this module also achieved excellent results in some of the partner enterprises, in partlcular a maJor paper producer. In general, however, the aspiratlons behind this module went beyond what the program could actually sustain, in economic as well as organizatlonal terms. If we want a research oriented towards innovation and economic growth. where the ' bottom line' is enterprise level acts, while the framework also allows for a link to, say. a broad range of more macro oriented themes within economy as well as organization. the module provides a good learning ground. There are two challenges emerging, both quite hard to meet. Partly, the research agenda be­ comes substantial. involving numerous issues from the economic to the social, from micro to macro, from the national to the international. which all need to not only be covered but to be covered well Partly. the interface with the enterprises becomes exceptlonally demanding, since the number and complexity of the impulses to be transmitted becomes large. While non-connected research pro­ cesses can. at least in principle, unfold at high speed, or at least at a speed decided by the researchers, feeding the impulses into the enterprises demands co-opera­ tion and hands-on relationships of such a kind that the speed is largely set by the enterprises. At this stage the demands for research input in terms of time also tends to rise sharply. There are good reasons for expanding perspectives and research agendas in the direction outlined in the report. In fact, the new initiative, 'Value Creation 20 1 0 ' . with its emphasis on being a national strategy for innovation and growth rather than an extension of the co-operation between the labor market parties, aims at taking some steps in this direction. It aims too, on the other hand, at a substantial growth in the interfaces between research and other actors and it may be that the overall balance between research oriented activitles and interface oriented activities will not be radically different from what it was in ED 2000.

PART IV

Discussion and Conclusions

Chapter 14

Innovation : Working together to achieve the Unique

Introduction The seven stories presented above differ, in outline as well as detail. There are, however, some points that emerge in all the stories: points which have to do with the development of the relationship between the researchers and the enterprises. Although differing in detail. the conversations between the researchers and the enterprises tend to follow a certain pattern: when research first approaches an enterprise, the enterprise actors will often start by asking research 'what it has to offer' . Research often responds by referring to ideas, concepts, theories. or whatever Is thought to be useful to the enterprise, which research can help explain. elaborate and implement as a kind of potential resource. Instead of outright rejection or acceptance of this offer. the enterprise actors at this point often tend to turn the conversation in a different direction. talking about them­ selves, their situation. the challenges they face, the needs they have for improve­ ment and innovation. Here. research Is facing a crucial challenge: it can either go on arguing for the potential of · general theory ' or it can try to relate to the more specific story told by the enterprise actors. Choosing the second alternative does not imply the abandonment of external ideas. but it can mean pushing them into the background, or, at least, refonnulating them so that they emerge as responses to the specific enterprise situation. In most cases the second choice seems to have been necessary, to be able to proceed with the enterprises. From Us initial contact phase the process moves into one of unfolding. This is mainly a phase of construction: of defining challenges and paths of action, of phasing in acts and actors, of setting up feedback mechanisms and similar. In this phase, theory and other forms of generalized wisdom tend to grow in importance: the point is that resources of this kind are played into the process according to its needs and dynamics. The process has no ultimate end. There will, however. be a need take stock every now and then. to develop some kind of overall picture of 'where we are·

232

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

and 'where we go ' to assess possible new courses of action. On a general level this is a simple story. Research initially offers to locate the enterprise within a framework of generalized wisdom, with the argument that this wisdom will help the enterprise deal with Us concrete problems. As the conversa­ tion unfolds. this initial approach is subsequently reversed: instead of generalized wisdom being the framework into which the enterprise has to · fit ' . the concrete situatlon of the enterprise starts moving into the foreground and generalized wisdom has to ' fit' this figure. In turning to detaJls and to the more specific dynamics of the relationships between research and the enterprises. the picture to emerge, however, is far from simple. Responding to specifics is rather different from holding forth on generali­ ties. It not only places other demands on personal skills and conversational behavior. the roots of this shift go all the way down to the level of epistemology and the use of knowledge. the role of theory and the nature of innovation processes. It emerges from the self-evaluation reports that the core contributions from the research side take the form of inputs into processes of what can be called ' reflection' or ' reflectivity' . By this is meant that the contributions relate to ' the working out ' of things, to ' finding out what path to move along ' , rather than to the application of specific tools. methods or situational interpretations. But is not 'reflection' a kind of preliminary actlvity - something to be done before the more serious research efforts are phased in? Is not research something to use j ust when we know what way to take. what line to pursue , in other words: when we have a clear problem? In principle. the answer is no - and this is not a novel point; it has been made many times before by contributors like Toulmin ( 1 996) . Schan ( 1 983) and others. In complex situations, the really difficult task is to get a grip on the situation, to identify some challenges that can be met, some approaches that can be taken. They may have to be changed later but it is a point in itself to set a preliminary course and get going so that a process which also implies learning can be set in train. Enterprise level complexities usually need to be sorted out and grappled with in a process of continuous action and reflection: pure reflection will soon run idle for lack of experiential inputs. Action with no reflection will do away with the idleness but the running will not lead anywhere. In ED 2000. co-operation between enterprises has been a major element. Such coalitions can sometimes be stable for long periods of time: in other cases they can be more shifting and fluid. In general, however, such themes as 'net­ works ' , · clusters ' and ·regions· play a core role in today· s innovation policies. In Chapter 1 . five themes were indicated that could be highlighted by the ED 2000 experience: How to organize for innovation; How to develop social partnerships in the labor market: How to develop participation from all concerned:

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO AC H I EVE THE UNI QUE

233

How to use research In processes of Innovation; How to work with the future. These themes are the points of departure for the final discussion. The themes, however. will not be commented on separately In a simple sequence. In actual practice they are Interwoven and will be dealt with together. Towards the end of the chapter an effort will be made to summarize the learning to emerge from ED 2000, but a somewhat different order will be applied, one of the reasons being that some of the learning from ED 2000 Implies a reorganization of themes and questions. ED 2000 has not been directed at making pre-gtven patterns of organization real. Instead, Its core aim has been to create relationships which have, Initially. been fairly open. When a set of relationships Is emerging it Is up to Its bearers to give it a specific content. The content Is not created by definition but by working together on specific Joint tasks. Whatever structural properties can be Identified take shape as an aspect of the emerging work processes. In the final analysts of ED 2000 we need, consequently. to approach the program from this perspective of 'working relationships' . In a sense this means to apply an Insider's perspective: the perspective of those who 'constitute' . or ' live ' the process rather than the perspective of those who report on it. Obviously. such a ' living within the process' perspective can be applied only to a certain extent: In cre.atlng a written text aimed at readers 'who were not there' the Insider has to turn his or her thoughts Into a form that make them accessible to ' outsiders' . To alternate between lived experience and written texts poses a number of challenges that certainly need to be discussed, but it would take us too far afield to embark on a broader discussion In this context. Here. we must stay content with noting the problem and demonstrating the specific way it has been dealt with In this study.

A Recapitulation of Points of Departure It emerges from Chapters 1 , 4. 5 and 6 that ED 2000 did not grow out of thin air. Rather. it had a broad range of forerunners and parallels. It would have simplified matters considerably If it had been poss ible to use these forerunners and parallels to establish a set of unequivocal premises that could be said to be · cleared · before ED 2000 and hence to be taken as given. ED 2000 could then have been directed at a set of ' new challenges' . while the old ones could be left donnant. Unfortu­ nately, this mechanical procedure Is not possible. ' Program design' Is always a constructive act, to be performed In dialogue with past and present parallels and nelghbors, using them as sources of experiences, Inspirations, Ideas and remind­ ers. but not as blueprints. The points and experiences Influencing the design of ED 2000 can be summarized as follows:

234

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

1 . In enterprise development. the problems and challenges of the enterprise must form the point of departure, rather than abstract concepts or theory. In the case of ED 2000 this followed from the link with the agreement on development between the labor market parties and was, for thJs reason. not a matter of dispute. However, even If this link had not existed. experiences with previous experimen­ tal and theory-driven efforts pulled In the same direction. 2. Even If the situation of the enterprise has to form the point of departure, one could Imagine the possibility of Identifying the characteristics of thJs situation through the application of pre-glven research methods and then moving directly Into the use of research-based. standardized remedies. Even this. however. Is not possible. Instead. experience Indicates that there Is a need for a process of stepwlse construction of understanding and action In a process of continuous Interaction between the enterprise actors and research. 3. In such a process of construction, dialogue has to be the main vehicle. As far ED 2000 Is concerned this, too. could be saJd to follow from the agreement on development. with Its emphasis on letting all concerned speak before change Is made. But reasons could also be sought In broader trends. There are many different headings under which research participates In efforts to develop new practices: action research, partlclpatlve action research. action Inquiry, partlclpa­ tlve Inquiry, appreciative Inquiry. qualitative Inquiry. action learning, democratic dialogue, to mention but a few, but they all presume some form or other of a process of Joint construction where exchange of words Is the main element and where the main concern Is to listen to each other, seek to understand each other, strive to find Joint solutions (for a collection of contributions covering most contemporary schools. see Reason and Brad bury 2000) . 4 . Knowledge transmission to a workplace Is seldom a mechanical process. Rather. for workplace actors to take knowledge to heart they need to be Involved In a process of action where the knowledge becomes relevant. They do not need to be Informed, they need to learn. Consequently, the Issue of local learning arenas emerges as a key one. 5 . Whtle there Is fairly widespread agreement among most researchers who work with practical development on these four points, there were further points Influencing the design of ED 2000 on which there may be, If not less agreement, then less focus. One of these Is the Issue of diffusion, or dissemination: how to get actors to learn from each other. For some this has been a maJn concern since the 1 960s (see for Instance Emery and Thorsrud 1 969) ; others still give no attention to lt. (Only a minority of the contributions to the Handbook of Action Research (Reason and Bradbury 2000) have this Issue on the agenda, for Instance.) Within ED 2000 and Its link to natlonal labor market organizations. the scale. or ' mass ' , of the changes were a main Issue from the start. 6 . Even when the problem of diffusion Is considered. lt Is often seen as a

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO AC H I EVE THE UNI QUE

235

question of how to transmit something from one single point In the social landscape to a number of ·users' : actually. such words as ' diffusion ' . or ' dissemi­ nation · point In this direction. Well before the emergence of ED 2000 there was experience Indicating that this could be a misleading perspective and that it had to be one of Joint construction rather than of diffusion. ·joint construction · Implies that · mass· Is achieved through working together and sharing experience rather than through some kind of process of linear copying. Achieving mass In this way would obviously pose some major challenges of organization but In designing ED 2000 it was decided to attack these challenges rather than return to the Idea of linear diffusion of 'lighthouse ' cases. In this context, experiences with the enter­ prise groups and networks of the LOM program as well as with the ' research logistics· of the health and safety reform from the 1 970s could provide some pointers. 7. The logistics challenge Is not only a question of linking numerous resource points to numerous user points, it Is also a question of linking the resource points to each other as well as the user points to each other. The reason for this need emerges from the constructivlst nature of the local learning processes: they do not primarily consist of ' absorbing' knowledge from outside but rather of using external knowledge to construct new approaches to local problems. Resource groups. such as research, must be aware of what happens outside their own projects to be updated within their own field and enterprises need to consider what other enterprises do In working out their own solutions. Consequently it was taken for granted from the start that a great deal of concern should be devoted to Issues like networks and regions as · units of development ' . This was supported by a number of other Inputs, such as the strong focus on these themes In Europe In general. 8. ED 2000 was conceived at the time when Innovation was taking over from change. development. renewal, Improvement and similar as the leading concept In economic development. In one sense this change Is gradual and Implies a modest shift In established discussions and perspectives. It also carries with it, however, an element of a break. While words like Improvement and development can be seen as the continuously better and more forceful Implementation of · given Ideas ' - total quality management, business process re-engineering. lean pro­ duction. to mention but some of the major catch-words of the 1 990s - Innovation turns the attention more strongly towards the new, the break, the product or process which has not existed before. Attention Is turned more towards the ability to do something unique rather than Implement something ' given' . There was a need to keep this shift In mind and keep an eye open for experiences that could highlight the unique In Innovation. The Idea of constructing the program In tenns of a number of modules - each module consisting of a number of researchers and enterprises - was chosen as the one most appropriately reflecting these points. Within each module the

236

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

problems and challenges of the participating enterprises were to form the points of departure and through concepts like development organJzatlon and stmJlar. the need for local learning arenas was underlined. Dialogue and process were empha­ sized, at the expense of fixed solutions and universal methods. Within each module the enterprises were to move In parallel and exchange experience rather than try to copy one single best solution. Each case within a network for the exchange of experience was to enrich the avatlable ideas and Impulses, not establish the one best pattern. The modular pattern emerged as a response to the problem of ·research logistics ' ; of how to position research In such a way that the potentJal for fruitful exchanges with enterprises could be maximized. Whtle the distributive pattern chosen In ED 2000 breaks radically with the idea of letting research Impulses emanate from one single cent er, there can be problems assoc iated with this pattern, In particular lack of mass and quality In each group. To compensate for this the research groups were to co-operate with each other, to form some elements of a national network. As emerge from several of the module reports, this Intention was not carried through In actual practice to the extent that it should have been. This does not, however, Invalidate the idea as such. Rather the opposite, since the researchers generally wanted more In this direction and point at economic and organizational constraints as decisive In the ED 2000 context. The need to replace the idea of 'diffusion ' with the idea of ' parallel construc­ tion ' was expressed through the emphasis on networks and stmtlar relationships between the enterprises. along with an emphasis on giving these networks as much ' mass ' as possible. Obviously. to reach a level of network organization that can fully take over the idea of · diffusion' on a natlonal level. much more would be needed In terms of networks as well as relationships between networks than what one could hope to achieve through a program of about NOK 1 5 million In terms of annual program money. The fact that the labor market parties have taken the Initiative to launch a broader program indicates that even though ED 2000 had Its obvious limitations - as the BenchmarkJng group also pointed out - it may nevertheless have succeeded In triggering off a potential 'second wave ' of net­ work formations. If so, it has been the most successful R&D effort so far In Scandinavia within the field of ' organization development' ; there were no direct follow-ups of any previous program. If one holds the program design up against the program· s achievements, it could be argued that the program design has withstood the test. and that· s that. Obviously, there are numerous things that could be done better, with or without more resources, but these can, In a sense. be seen as detatls. The discussion of these detatls belong. furthermore. to a context In the form of a specific future program since it Is often quite pointless to discuss 'what should be done' without considering the economic and organtzatlonal resources avatlable for doing it. But

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO AC H I EVE THE UNI QUE

237

Is there any deeper learning emerging as possible? Does the program add any­ thing to the understanding and strategic thJnklng that was already present during the formation and early phases of the program? Absent any glaring discrepancy between design and experience, the question can only be approached by going somewhat more deeply Into some of the more specific Issues and challenges to which ED 2000 has given rise. Here. we will choose some that have to do more specifically with lnnovatlon. Spanning the gap between ' Improvement ' and ' ln­ novatlon · as lt does, ED 2000 Is far from a pure Innovation program, but it does have a foot In this camp and this foot can be used as a basis for some reflections. Since Innovation, In contrast to the Idea of lmplementlng the best among exlstlng patterns. has the unique characteristic of being a search for the unique and different these two notions will form the points of departure for the discussion.

Research, Innovation and the Unique Throughout their history. efforts to 'understand' human and social Issues have oscillated between basically different approaches (Shatter and Gustavsen 1 999) . One Is from the outside as observers. This aJms at the forms of understanding we seek In tradltlonal theory-centered philosophy. It can be called an understanding of a representational-referential kind. It alms at · fixing · the object of one 's understanding within a medium of representation - usually In written language - and In terms of hierarchically ordered schemes of lnterllnked propositions. Each specific scheme alms at presenting one single, logically structured order of connectedness. Much Innovation theory Is of this kind, although - given the specific challenges associated with this Issue - there Is a tendency to accept that ' the full order of connectedness ' has not yet been worked out. but that it eventu­ ally will be, Is still often taken for granted. Within such a way of thinking. becoming Innovative would demand that we first identify present or historical examples of Innovative patterns. second, reflect these patterns In a general theory and. third, Implement this theory In new situations. Uhlln et al. (2000) provides an example where this kind of theory was placed up front In a regional development program: the problem was that lt was barely understood by the actors concerned. In thJs connection. they make the quite Important point that theory must help point out possible actlon under complexity. rather than make action complicated. A way to make it simpler Is to focus on the actors concerned, their motlves and other driving forces, to see how social orders can emerge from the Interplay between actors. Since the actors In a sense meet themselves In the theory the theory should be more easily accessible to the actors. The problem with both these approaches Is that none of them take much

238

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

account of change. This problem was not serious as long as change was seen as infrequent. rather a-typical events, often in the form of more or less revolutionary upheavals to which one had to adapt before a new stable set of structures and motlves (to be described scientifically) could emerge. In the context of work and enterprises this view of change has probably never been quite correct. but the more overt pressure came in the 1 980s with the Japanese-inspired idea of continuous improvement. ' Change · moved from being rare, but dramatic, events, to becoming less dramatic but rather more frequent. With the advent of ' learning organization ' change became the main structure­ generating force on the level of the single organization: the emergence of ' innova­ tion ' has placed change in the driver's seat of economic policy. Today. the problem is primarily to understand and promote change and this. as pointed out by Shatter ( 1 994) , means to enter a realm of understanding different from the mapping of given structures and the understanding of motives. Since change means to transcend the structures and motives that are. it can. by definition, not be understood by looking at 'what is' . how, then, can we approach change? One approach of long standing is to withdraw from the world as it is: avoiding the contamination from existing practices and institutions by opting out, forming a new community and setting a completely new course. While this may seem a feasible strategy if the purpose is to fight a battle of faith or politics - and has in fact been chosen by many. from St Ignatius Loyola to Karl Marx - it is hardly a useful strategy for an enterprise. An enterprise, however large and successful. cannot itself set all the rules of the game. It has to compete in sltuatlons where there are numerous other enter­ prises who all move in the same terrain, all try to capture the same markets and customers. An enterprise has to compete ' from within' : not by opting out. It has to be present among other enterprises and often intensely present, in the sense that to be successful there is a need to know what a substantial number of other enter­ prises do and what solutions are possible to meet them on their home ground. For research, within a context of this kind. to get to grips with a search for the unique, there are essentially two ways open: one is to search for ' places ' where change is likely to occur and then try to look at the process as it unfolds. as, so to speak. a spectator in the first row. The second is to move into relationships with specific other actors to Jointly try to perform innovation. In this approach, research is not only a student of change performed by others, it is itself amongst the actors working for change. In choosing the second approach we would start, not with theoretlcally distilled wisdom based on previous examples and implement this wisdom but with establishing relationships to see if we could accomplish some innovations together. We would not move via 'general theory ' but would instead go straight into the innovative process.

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO AC H I EVE THE UNI QUE

239

In this we shall have to start looking not for what our given coalition has In common with other coalitions but for what may set it apart. We shall have to look for the unique rather than the general. In looking for the unique we could start by constructing a ' local theory' : a collection of concepts and relationships between concepts dedicated to giving us a picture of this speciflc coalition (El den 1 983) . One may have to go deeper, however. In Shatter and Gustavsen ( 1 999) lt is argued that in looking for the unique we shall have to relate to practical meanings as they appear within the coalltlon rather than abstract patterns. and to Internally interconnected particulari­ ties. It is by seeing the unique possibilities and combinations that an enterprise, a network. or a region can be innovative, not by seeing Identities and likenesses. Thus. as researchers. we must turn from a concern with regularities and represen­ tatlons of past events to unique. · once-occurrent events of being' (Bakhtln 1 993) , i.e., particular occurrences which, on appropriate occasions. can give rise to the beginning of new practlces - for these are the Incipient beginnings of poss ibly new relations from which innovations can emerge. We do not know to what extent the wish to focus on one ' s own enterprise, one ' s own network, has been particularly strong In ED 2000 compared to, say, programs some years back. where there was generally a stronger focus on implementlng ·given ideas ' , such as ' lean production · or ·flexible organization' . Even when the point is to ' implement ' something hit upon elsewhere there are still reason to start with one · s own enterprise and move from there to external wisdom. However, when focus shifts towards Innovation. one consequence Is that focus on · one ' s own ' will grow because this is the context out of which innova­ tion will have to emerge. Even though the drift from contlnuous improvement of given Ideas to local innovation Is gradual, and a shift In focus more than a radical Jump in practices, there is stlll reason to assume that it strengthens the emphasis on the given here and now of the participating enterprises. Furthermore, Instead of being concerned with arriving at a definitive picture of meanings and particularitles, the aim must be to help use these meanings and patterns to create innovative change. This means that they have to be developed further. They cannot be seen as static · givens ' but as doors that open up to further dynamism. This dynamism must go In the direction of a continuous development of the local and specific, to make lt more and more unique. Research has to act within the framework of this kind of process. rather than be steered by general concerns. Instead of a represen­ tatlonal understanding of a given structure - which might be viewed by an outsider as just another neutral object in his or her surroundings - research must seek what might be called a relational-responsive understanding of its ' Inner life ' , a perceived sense of what. in practice. given certain momentary surroundings. the coalltlon members should do for the best.

240

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

Elements of this kind of process can be seen in the ED 2000 experiences. Many of the researchers report starting out with general assumptions concerning what problems the enterprises faced and what was needed to deal with them I.e. ' total quality management' - but they gradually had to change their focus: not necessarily away from quality as a worthy goal. but rather away from abstract systems and towards quality as specific forms of practices among specific actors In specific contexts. ' The systems ' recede into the background. the specific move forwards In the field of vision. Although ED 2000 as a program is coming to an end and a need to 'take stock' emerges, all the modules also express the point that they do not feel to be ' finished ' . There are loose threads. tasks that are unfinished. ongoing processes with outcomes not yet decided. Several of the modules also touch upon the problems this generates for their research tasks. Representational understanding ideally takes the form of · finished · stories: stories based on all the facts being present, no loose threads floating around, all patterns having emerged. When research participates In the innovation process the task facing research, however, ls not to create finished and complete stories: In a sense it is Just the opposite. On the meeting ground between actors intent on Innovation the problem Is Just to avoid ' being finished' , seeing all the alternatives, knowing all there Is to know. The challenge Is precisely to transcend, to use 'what Is ' to open new doors. see new ways and new combinations. Shatter and Gustavsen ( 1 999) draw a distinction between passive and active understandings (Bakhtin 1 986) . A passive understanding is a finished product, a product that does not call for more Inputs and elements. An active understanding aims at transcendence. at drawing responses from others. at opening doors, In a sense at exploding meanings. In such a context. 'the best story' is the most short­ lived one, the one with the strongest potential for being replaced by a new story. It Is this kind of Interplay. when people are creating openings for each other so that they can move further and further along a Joint path. which is at the same time unique, which seems to be at the heart of Innovation processes. Within such processes research has to help turn the seemingly finished into the unfinished. it has to help the enterprise see, for instance. that there are more alternatives present than those the enterprise actors have been able to see. When this is the ' on line task' , however, it becomes difficult to shift track and turn to finished and complete stories when the program is over. A program like ED 2000 Is a way in which the public organizes Its support for the enterprises, it Is not a reflection of the innovation processes as such. For the participating enterprise the process Is never finished. In fact. an enterprise may easily say that the chief outcome of the process has been to become more open and fluid in our ways of thinking and our patterns of organization; there is less of a definable structure at the end than in the beginning.

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO ACHI EVE THE UNI QUE

24 1

In thJs context, we can do little more than note the problem. It cannot be solved by converting parttclpatlve innovation research back to traditional struc­ tural descrtptlons nor to descriptions of the actors. Rather. we deal. as Shatter and Gustavsen ( 1 999) point out. with a third realm of research, a realm where the point Is to grapple with change and transcendence and with a particular emphasis on the unique, on what has not existed before. The different approaches can enrich each other, but they cannot take each others' place. A still prevalent tendency to see research involvement in change and innovation in workplaces and enterprises as 'applied research' creates some degree of confusion. It can very well be seen as applied research but within a realm of its own: it Is not a question of applying representational studies of structures nor of actors. That, on the other hand, the various realms Interact and interact strongly Is very well demonstrated by the ED 2000 modules which generally see themselves as involved simultaneously in different kinds of re­ search processes. Inasmuch as we may want to promote · baste research· specifically aiming at pursuing themes like change and innovation. we need to aim this at the speclflc challenges associated with change and transcendence as collective. practical processes and not at further studies of given patterns. At the time this is being written, and most of the researchers involved In ED 2000 are embarking on the task of wrttlng up the research studies, this tension comes to the surface, In many cases strongly. There are no simple remedies. One consolation may be that whJle researchers Involved in practlcal development experience this tension quite acutely. lt Is moving in on the whole social science establishment. Unless we develop appropriate ways of dealing with change. Innovation, transcendence. the not yet made, the idea of social research will end up as a parenthesis in the history of enlightenment. Numerous researchers and research groups. schools of thought. and new tnJtlatJves are approaching this problem. or rather cluster of problems. It is not possible. In this report. to move into a deeper debate about these issues, however much such a debate Is needed to reap the full benefits from ED 2000 . Such a debate would range from practical problems to epistemology. from crttlcal theory to pragmatism, from action research to con­ structlvtsm. from local understandlngs to universal reason and much more. ED 2000 does not ultimately ' settle' any Issue but lt provides a new source of experiences that can hopefully. over the next years. help move some of the debates some steps further.

Three Generations of Approaches to Development To further highlight this notlon of Innovation-supportive research, a brief reca­ pitulation of other notlons of how to use research In development contexts may be

242

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

appropriate. In the chapter on the evolution of development research In working life, a series of ' phases' were Indicated. Beginning with experiments and studies of natural examples of ·good practices· the point of origin for research contribu­ tions was the Idea of 'the exemplary case ' : the case from which others could learn. In Its most developed form, such a case would be a fully rounded and presented case, lncluding proofs of Us 'truth ' . Only when a full story was told and scientifically documented could learning take place. This storytelling and docu­ mentation should, furthermore. be done in an obJectlfying. representational lan­ guage. The learning would take the form of 'model ' learning: those who were to learn would have to take the case to heart and 'do the same' . In this they would have to transform the obJectlfying language of the case study back Into a subJec­ tive action language. Since 'the model case ' had to be constructed on the basis of existing social facts U also built on the assumption that by understanding what Is , we shall be equipped to deal with the future. The diffusion problems of this approach are well known and have been much commented on (Gustavsen 1 996 and references therein) . At the heart of these problems is the transformation from an obJecUfytng. representational research language Into an action language which can mobilize the experiences and action skills of those who are to share the diffusion process (Leminsky 1 997) . As noted In Chapter I they may adopt ·a new paradigm ' but they have to ' live U · on the basis of the skills and experiences they actually have. In the light of these diffusion problems there emerged what can be called a distributive-interactive phase. In this approach the idea was to bring a number of enterprises together In a group. cluster, or network and make them work together on development. None of them were elevated to the position of leading example and corresponding obJectlfled case. I nstead. each participating organization was thought to contribute as well as to learn. One may Imagine that out of the contributions a ' full case ' would emerge. pieced together by elements from each of the enterprises. Where no single participant could generate a full case the enterprises could do 1t together. However. this was not the way in which the distributive-interactive approach came to be used, since this way would run up against one maJor stumbling block: the fact that the case would not be present when the process began but had to be created as one went along. The case would eventually be there, but only when the process had come to an end and then lt would, of course, be of a somewhat limited usefulness. Such a case would have to function as a learning ground not for the enterprises who created 1t but for enterprises coming after them - or the same enterprises in a new phase. Then, however, the diffusion problems would be exactly the same as if the case was generated on the basis of one single organiza­ tion.

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO ACHI EVE THE UNI QUE

243

Given this. the kind of interaction to emerge in distributlve-interactive efforts, such as the LOM program in Sweden (Gustavsen 1 992) . came to go in a different direction. Rather than creating one single Joint case the enterprises came to use each other in figure - ground conflguratlons where the primary point for each enterprise is to understand itself. but against the background of others. Other enterprises are used as a backcloth against which to pose oneself. The purpose of this kJnd of comparison is not primarily to find out 'what pattern is best · but to see to what extent patterns and actlons in one enterprise can provide another enter­ prise with ideas for interpretation of self and for new action. Such ideas for future action do not necessarily mean ·doing the same · : they can actually lead to doing the opposite. or find a ' third way' . It was clearly seen, in thJs period, that ' learning from cases' is a far more complex process than a choice between copying and reJectlng. In this phase the idea of 'linear diffusion' of one single message was actually abandoned. Instead, the notion of reaching ' scope ' . or ' mass ' was transformed into the idea of continuously widening the circle of enterprises using each other in figure-ground configurations. Small groups of enterprises were intended to Join each other in larger networks. larger networks to Join each other within, say. a regional context and so on (Gustavsen 1 992: Engelstad and Gustavsen 1 993) . Since the issue is seldom one of copying or not. the ' truth value' of a particular case loose some of its importance as an issue. When major efforts at change are hanging on one single case it is of some importance that the case­ presentation available to those who are to use it is a true one. If the efficiency of a certain pattern of group organization is used as a telling argument in favor of other enterprises implementing this pattern, it is, of course, quite important that the productivity figures presented as a part of the argument are correct. (The classical example of a debate on ' the truth of a case ' is the one associated with the Hawthorne project (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939) . a debate which has been going on until fairly recently (i.e. Gillespie 1 99 1 ) .) When experiences from other enterprises are used as sources of ideas the truth issue loses some of its impor­ tance, although it is not unimportant, of course. The point that a number of enterprises will usually be participating in a distributive-interactive strategy also contributes to the ways in which issues of truth and validity are handled. ·A story · from one participant must be found credible not only by one other enterprise but by a number. It must rest on assumptions that can be controlled by many: it must have a form that makes it accessible to many: and it will circulate in networks where a number of different configurations of actors will carry the story. In this way. ' the everyday validation mechanisms' will be much stronger than is gener­ ally the case when all rests on one case, often a 'distant case ' . in the sense that its source is an enterprise 'not present' but available in literature only. (In ED 2000 it is Just this many-sided approach to the assessment of the contributions from each

244

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

case which has been applied; by each research group as well as by the benchmark­ log group (Chapter 3) .) In general, 'the cases ' in this period became more dedicated to demonstrating new choices rather than substantiating old ones; each case became a part of a complex of cases; the cases were played in and out of a moving field of situations (Gustavsen 1 997). Focus turned Increasingly to how things work from the per­ spective of creating change. For a distributive-Interactive approach to work. there must be direct links between the actors. They must be related to each other and ln ways that are sufficiently rich and strong to allow for complex processes of comparisons and discussions. In a distributive-Interactive approach one may still, however. see each participating enterprise as the core actor while the relation­ ships between enterprises can be seen as 'accessories' . making it possible to add an external dimension to essentially ' Internal · processes. If the relationships are developed until a stage Is reached where they encom­ pass a substantial number of enterprises. allow for rich discussions and take on a permanent character, the relationships as such can be seen as ' the figure ' . It Is ' there ' as a social reality and can survive a certain amount of entry and exit: enterprises can Join or leave without the relationships being seriously disturbed. Actually. if there is a net growth In membership the network Itself can be seen as subject to growth and also to growth-conditioned transformations. Ways and means to 'organization development' become a product of characteristics of the relationships rather than the other way around. Although there are fluid boundaries between this kind of situation and the distributive-Interactive one there are reasons to posit a third kind of situation which can be called relational, or relational-responsive (Shatter and Gustavsen 1 999) . Thoughts and activities emerge ' inside ' a relationship rather than outside, or prior to, the relationship and are In themselves a product of the nature, or characteristics, of the relationship.

Connectedness and Relational-Respomlve Contexts Against this background we can turn back to the major theme of the self­ evaluations: the building of links. or relationships. Without relationships. of course. a relational-responsive approach to change Is not possible. What change can occur is. furthermore, strongly linked to the characteristics of the relation­ ships: their scope and internal differentiation. their density and Joint arenas and much more. Although research may have different tasks in the building of such relation­ ships. ED 2000 indicates that a major task for research has to do exactly with constructing these relationships, or - as indicated ln the title of the boo k -

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO ACHI EVE THE UNI QUE

245

creating connectedness . With the view on Innovation emerging over the last decade or two, with a growing emphasis on ' system · rather than the Individual actor. on ' linking establishments ' - such as Industry. university and government rather than developing them separately - on regions. clusters and networks rather than the Individual enterprise. the relationships Increasingly emerge as ' the figure ' . Perhaps with some degree of exaggeration, but not all that much. one could say that Innovation Is connectedness. Only by being connected Is lt possible to know what others do and to use this as the raw materials for one ' s own Innovative acts. Connectedness Is relationships and relationships are social phenomena. al­ though they may be backed by various technological supports, like Internet communication. For the kind of research that grapples with human and social Issues In work and enterprise contexts lt Is. however. natural to confront just the Issue of how to create and maintain social relationships and make them dynamic and expansive. The concept of development coalition can be used to Indicate a ' system of relationships ' or ' connections ' where the elements hang together. The main characteristic of ED 2000 Is efforts to create, or further develop. such connec­ tions: first. of course. within each participating enterprise : Generally. an enterprise Is ' by definition' a pattern of connectedness since 'an organization · Is neither more nor less than such a pattern. In this sense. the members of an organization are always connected. As Is known from numerous studies of organization. such patterns can. however. show substantial variation. A bell ( 1 978) provides quite an Illustrative example when he points out that In an organization with 1 00 roles there will be 99 lines of connectedness If the number of links Is minimized (n- 1 ) while 1t Is 980 1 [ (n- 1 )2] If the number of links Is maximized. In 'creating connectedness ' there Is. consequently. no lack of chal­ lenges even within each separate organization. The notion of development organization, as developed In particular by The Work Research Institute, can be seen as Instituting a different order of connected­ ness when the task Is development rather than ' production ' . Although the bench­ marking report Indicates a certain amount of uncertainty among the program users concerning the meaning of this concept, the concept has clearly come to stay. Given the growing emphasis on change - In all forms and under all headings - In today ' s working life lt Is hard to see how to proceed without a vocabulary reflecting the point that there are some crucial differences between working on defined tasks versus defining what tasks to work on In the future. If. In the Interviews. 'development organization ' had been compared to, say. ' learning organization ' - a concept reflecting some of the same concerns - 1t Is likely that they would have come out rather even In terms of clarity from the point of view of the users.

246

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

Second, connections across organizational boundaries: There are elements of coalltion between enterprises and other local actors such as municipal authorities - ln the fishing ports of Northern Norway: there are also some llnks between the harbors. In the Trondhelm module, the enterprises that were brought together as a part of the project are successively developing a co-operation, encompassing four to five medium-sized enterprises. The Nordvest Forum ls a substantial network. or actually several layers of networks: lt has about 1 50 users, about 50 owners and various sub-groups and clusters of enterprises working together on specific themes. The Rogaland module comprises three major networks: TESA. encompassing 1 4 engineering enterprises working together on a number of themes: SYNERGI , dedicated to the analysts of risk situations and encompassing a number of the major enterprises ln the oll and gas sector: and The Sunnhordland network encompass ing a main contractor and its suppllers along a value creation chain. In the Agder module there are llnks to two regional networks: one working to promote competence development. the other to promote the joint interests of IT fums. The Work Research Institute ls developing a network between enterprises ln the process industry. If we move on to include other examples. such as those presented ln Ennals and Gustavsen ( 1 998) . the range of differences grows. In the sense that 'development coalition' ls taken here - as any pattern of relationships that can promote development for Us participants - there are almost no llmlts to what can be included. ranging from small groups of small firms to regions. such as the Itallan ones. with populatlons on a par with the smaller European nation states (Cossentino et al. 1 996) . Whatever the size and mass there ls, however, a need for someone to lnltlate a development leading towards more connectedness , there ls a need for meeting places, for joint activities and bodies and for the successive development of the relationships so that their potentlal for supporting creatlvlty can be utlllzed as fully as possible. This is where the core thrust of the research contributions within ED 2000 can be found. ' Networks ' and ' regions' are main focal points ln the contemporary land­ scape and there is a major llterature on both these phenomena, often deallng with structural properties, scale. and slmllar. Much valuable information is transmit­ ted. of obvious importance to all who are trying to promote development coall­ tions. We shall not. ln this context. pursue these llnes. Partly. lt would take us too far afield. Partly. lt actually seems to be the case that the lndlvldual enterprise can be well served by different types of coalitions. Looking at the examples presented ln Ennals and Gustavsen ( 1 998) , lt can be seen that some enterprises make progress within a context of a handful of enterprises: ln other cases the progress ls

INNOVATION : WORK ING TOG ETHER TO A C H I EVE THE UNIQUE

247

backed by a large region with a populatlon of several million and a corresponding degree of differentiation, richness and weight In the lnstltutlonal setting. In between there are numerous examples, to which we may add a potential for a mushrooming of ' virtual ' regions - social landscapes with no specific geo­ graphic anchorage - In the future. Sometimes a culture beneficial to co-opera­ tion and network building Is contributing to economic success; In other cases advances emerge out of old Industrial settlngs characterized by traditionalism, mistrust and Isolationism. It would be a mistake to assume that we could. on theoretical grounds alone, define, say, a ' learning region' In advance. The process would have to start with some actors within a rather vaguely defined context to release certain conversa­ tions and then aim at successively expanding these conversatlons until they come to encompass sufficient actors to call the landscape a 'region ' (Gustavsen 2000) . Where we end up Is not dictated by where we start. To create a learning region Is In Itself a maJor process of learning with associated unpredictable changes In directions and activities. Any specific type of development coalltlon Is a ' struc­ tural reminder' - something to be considered potentially fruitful - but not a structure conferring success on those who apply it and condemning those who do not to utter failure.

Moving by Differences Innovative enterprise development Is a search for the unique and the special. but doing it within a rather densely organized context of other actors and enterprises. Furthermore. although the word ' Innovation· has a connotation of pathbreaktng, of the solutlon which Is not only new but which actually stands out as such, enterprise realities are generally different. The Increasingly widespread use of Innovation Implies that the acts and processes fall ing under this heading are becoming more and more everyday and ordinary. ' The new solution' Is seldom new In an absolute sense; In most cases it will represent a new twist to an old pattern. Inasmuch as one single aspect characterizes the successful enterprise it Is an ability to live on, and actively utilize, · common knowledge' , but to continu­ ously throw thJs knowledge around to form new patterns. new ways of doing things. It Is thJs kind of situation that brings enterprises to form networks and other coalitions to draw benefits from each other. But what benefits do they. more specifically, draw? Even In a globalized economic context, there are stlll a number of factors that have to be dealt with locally. such as the supply of labor and competence. Many enterprises cannot, on their own, create an adequate local labor market. they need to do it together and to make a Joint approach to. say. local educational lnstltu-

248

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

lions, planning authorltles and the llke. However: are there reasons of a different kind. having to do with more baste characteristics of learning processes? Is the reason for Joining forces, for Instance, that the enterprises can then form a 'class· and rationallze the process of learning from external Impulses? Alternatively. do they need to find 'the besf among themselves and learn how to copy the smartest In the class? If these were the main motives lt would be difficult to explain long term co-operation. such as that In the TESA or Nordvest Forum networks. After a whlle, all participants would have learned what was poss ible to learn and since they would all have learned ' the same· they would be allke. Identical enterprises would have llttle to offer each other and each one would benefit from turning to other sources that could offer new Impulses. The core element In Interactive learning actually seems to be differences. At each and every point In time. the enterprise demonstrates certain characteristics In terms of what lt does and how well it does lt. To move, there Is a need for Impulses that can demonstrate that Improvements are poss ible; other things can be done or what Is done can be done better. There must be an identified gap that can be filled. The Interaction between enterprises can help identify such gaps. By comparing activities and performance level each partner can become aware of opportunities for Improvement. By seeing that somebody else performs better or does things differently. a background Is establlshed against which one ' s own actlons and performances can be positioned. What others do functions as reminders. new perspectives. generators of ideas. This Is the core idea that lles at the heart of benchmarklng: talking about ' benchmarktng · Instead of, say, evaluation Is meant to Imply an orlentatlon to Improvement by comparing oneself to others, rather than an orlentatlon to ab­ stract standards. Unfortunately. even the idea of benchmarktng has rapidly been turned In an abstract direction. Among all practices within a certain field the point Is to single out one, and persuade all actors to measure themselves against this one. Whereas there obviously Is a point In comparing oneself with ' the best ' . the problem Is that this ' best· tends to emerge as abstract standards rather than concrete experience. In the notion of ' best practice· there are, however. two words rather than one: not only ' best' but also ' practice· . One point about something being ' practlce· Is that lt Is accessible as such: can be experienced as practlce. can be seen. touched and felt, so to speak. However splendid the performance of a Japanese car manufacturer may be. lt Is hardly accessible to a small engineering firm In Norway In any other form than words on paper or In the conference room. For an organization to react constructively to a gap. the idea of crossing lt must have some degree of reallsm. To take a big jump from tradltlonal workshop to stream­ llned global actor Is rarely feasible. The organization wlll lnstead withdraw. not seldom with the consequence that lt disappears.

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO ACHI EVE THE UNI QUE

249

The main problem is that of creatlng a fruitful process of learning and development; a process allowing for stepwise improvements. It is the demands and ' logic ' of this learning process that need to be focused on. And in this kind of learning process the direct an non-mediated use of the experiences of other enterprises has the potentlal to act as a very powerful engine. Without completely forgetting the global best. the orientation towards the local learning process is a marked feature of ED 2000, generally emerging out of the explicit wishes of the participating enterprises. If the purpose of a local learning context were only to identify gaps and challenges the context would wither away, however. When such contexts seem to live on and grow it is because they also function as resources in meeting the challenges. When a gap is seen on the basis of comparison with other enterprises, perspectives also emerge on how the gap can be handled. When other enterprises demonstrate better results. they also demonstrate why the results are better. What they do is offer some possible steps to take or solutions to strive for. If the enterprise experiencing the gap simply sets out to copy one of the other enterprises, it would never be able to surpass the other. If it is to surpass each specific other it has to look at a multitude of patterns and solutlons with a view to creating its own mix of elements. Such a mix would be what Latour ( 1 996) calls a hybrid. but Latour also makes the point that it is hybrids that form the core of innovation. To form hybrids there is a need to acquire impulses from a number of sources. not only one. One may. of course. ask if there is a need to surpass ' the other' : in many cases there is space for more than the single best. even in local markets. However true this may be in market terms. another aspect of development coalitions enters the picture. For the participating enterprise it is. of course. not a practical proposi­ tion to surpass everybody else on all points: that would be impossible since the other participants in the coalition will work along the same lines and. in principle, create their own innovative solutlons. For an enterprise to be a useful partner in a coalitlon, however, it must be innovative and advanced in some respects. Other­ wise it will not constitute an interesting partner for the others and they may be unwilling to keep up the investments in the relationship. The development and maintenance of development coalitions implies. after all. costs in tlme and money. often quite substantial ones. and these have to be compared to the learning potentlal inherent in the co-operation. The one who wants to learn from others has to offer the others the possibility of learning something in return. ' In the beginning' the resources that are to help the enterprise meet new challenges must exist in the immediate environment; in actors and organizations to which there is access. Unless there is a link between the one who helps identify the problem and the one who helps deal with it, the enterprise can easily feel itself straddling a gap that is widening rather than shrinking. In the long run. local

250

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

coalttions may grow and mature Into coalitions moving to the frontllne of global development within fields Hke qualtty. organization of supply chains. network­ based product development. and more: but few can hope to start there. This point Is strongly present In the module reports: In the emphasis placed by the enter­ prises on local cases, on experiences to which there Is access. on avoiding concepts · flying away' from local practices. In creating movement through the systematic utilization of comparative differences. lt seems to be Important that the process covers most or all of the maJor areas Involved In organizing and running enterprises. In discuss ing Innova­ tion there Is often a tendency to focus strongly on technologies and products. However, there are a large number of other Issues that need to be handled as well: supply chains and logistics. marketing and customer relations. contracts and financing. employment and skills development. and much more. The Interactive processes must, Initially. cover all areas. Although the researchers participating In ED 2000 represented far from all the forms of competences needed In enterprise development processes. they still seem to have been able to relate to complex sltuatlons with a number of elements. On the whole. they seem to have provided support balanced over a number of themes rather than perhaps more advanced support that Is also more highly selective. or one-sided. Notwithstanding. a number of the enterprises express a wish to try 'new researchers ' the next time (Chapter 3) . not because they were dissatisfied with the ones they worked with but because they want to move on to deal with new challenges and new themes. If a development coalttlon Is based on the resources present In small local environments - such as the fish processing ports In Northern Norway - how can lt ever hope to reach global excellence? The answer to this has been touched upon a number of times: by successively building the relationships so that more and more actors are brought In, Increasing the span of the network. There Is nothing preventing these small fishing ports from being part of global networks. In fact. to some extent they already are. but these networks are still thin and unstable. But the networks need to emerge from local platforms. Without local platforms that enable the enterprises to handle Issues assoc iated with the near environment - such as how to secure a competent and stable workforce - there Is, for obvious reasons. ltttle need for global relatlonshlps. A point about the successive growth In the pattern of relatlonshlps Is that this also lmpltes a successive growth In the Impulses circulating within the network. By Inducing the network to grow, a continuous Influx of new Impulses Is ensured, enabltng each enterprise to reach higher and higher In terms of actlon parameters and performance level. On this background lt Is reasonable to ass ume that the most fruitful networks are those that grow out organically from their points of origin In such a way that the new Impulses all the time constitute new and Interesting challenges rather than paralyzlng threats. The stream of Impulses must. on the other hand, be sufficiently rich to keep up a forward momentum.

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO ACHI EVE THE UNI QUE

25 1

Growth Is often a question of creating new relationships with new actors. But 1t Is also an Internal perspective on growth: Intensification, enriching and differ­ entiation are ways In which a set of relationships can be brought to Increase the speed of development without adding new actors. By Intensification Is meant Increasing the flow of Impulses circulating In the network. It presupposes that there Is a 'reserve' of Impulses present among the existing actors that can be tapped and that there Is capacity for utilizing more Impulses. or Impulses at a more rapid rate. By enriching Is meant feeding new types of Impulses, or Impulses pertaining to new themes, Into the existing system of relationships. Within the ED 2000 population, TESA may constitute the most clear-cut example, In Its development from being largely oriented on Issues of production to becoming an Infrastructure for support within a broad range of areas. Differentiation means multiplying the relationships so that what was, Ini­ tially. ' one relationship ' Is converted Into a number. each relationship carrying a more specialized set of Impulses. Vaguely defined schemes for co-operation can, for Instance, be developed Into more specialized overlapping channels for dealing with different themes, such as quality. logistics. etc. The evolution of Nordvest Forum. from largely dealing with management development to providing support to more comprehensive development processes, Is an example. Internal and external growth will often accompany each other: when new actors are brought In they not only add Impulses wlthJn existing areas. they will often open up new areas. As, for Instance, the ·seafood networks' are expanding globally. the new actors make contributions to global marketing. quality thinking In the sushi market. and the like, rather than to how to solve labor market problems In Northern Norway. Research has been a partner In the kJnd of coalitions promoted In ED 2000: so too. sometimes, have other actors external to the enterprises. One way of looking at thJs kind of actor configuration Is to see lt as contributing to growth, In particular through differentiation and enrichment. To some extent the role of research becomes special In that it not only has to do with contributing new Impulses different from those of the other actors. but also with Interpreting. or In other respects enriching, the Impulses emitted by the other actors. Impulses sometimes need Interpretation, or other forms of enrichment. before they can be used to the full. Even If the raw material Is provided by the enterprises there can still be a need to put thJngs together and Institute order to maximize the meanJng potential of any given set of Impulses. In helping development coalitions differentiate. research must avoid ·con­ ceptual differentiation· running ahead of the needs for differentiation emanating from practice. Research often likes to call attention to numerous 'aspects ' of reality, regardless of what the actors concerned need to be able to act. In develop­ ment situations lt Is the prerequisites for fruitful action that must decide the speed

252

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

and scope of the process of differentiation. The point is made, for instance. by the Rogaland module. when it is stated (Chapter 7) that several management concepts had to be integrated rather than further differentiated to make them fit the degree of practical differentiation reached by the actors concerned. Another version of · concepts running wild ' is to throw in the globally best among a group of SMEs in the Norwegian hinterland. Further examples could be mentioned: it is a maJor element in the competence of research to be able to stay close to the streams of communication and action generated by the other actors in the coalition. whJle still being able to enrich these streams. To what extent the researchers are ' inside network members' or fulfilling a special 'support role ' is largely a question of perspective. The point is that each specific combination of enterprises and re­ searchers constitute a coalition of its own. These points may seem rather obvious and trivial. As ' points of principle ' they certainly are. The core issue here is not so much to identify. in general terms, what needs to be done, as to actually do it. While it is easy to say that a network must grow at a rate that ensures an optimum inflow of new impulses, it is hard to achieve. What is put to the test here is not so much our ability to make points in the abstract as the ability to actually develop links and relationships in real life and ensure that impulses flow along these channels at a rate that provides each participant with just those impulses that ensures a maximum growth in innovative capacity. ED 2000 must be seen mostly as a trial and error program rather than one identifying any kJnd of ' optimum ' . Although such ' optima' cannot be identi­ fied in general terms it is certainly possible to do it better than was done in ED 2000 . To do it better, however. one needs to start somewhere and proceed from there. To be a good network performer there is a need to have a feeling for relationship building. for linking and connecting and for doing things at the right time. Actually. timing is often more important than anything else. In building coalitions of substantial mass, the point is not to have a fixed methodology. but to be eclectic in methodological terms. although - as touched on below - within limits. To be eclectic is just to react to the situation as it is - to choose the course of action that best fits the given context. Within a network with the potential for innovation, the given context will generally be just those aspects of the network that are open to innovation and the art will be to utlllze such openings to actually create growth. From the point of view of each enterprise, networking is a mixture of co­ operation and competition. Sometimes the competition can be direct but this is not often the case. To become deeply involved with others in development coalitions, the enterprises will seldom choose partners with whom they are in direct compe­ tition in specific local markets. Insofar as they compete. it will often be in a more remote sense, such as fish process ing firms competing on the global market, but since they are all small while the market is huge the competition wtll be rather

INNOVATION : WORK ING TOG ETHER TO A C H I EVE THE UNIQUE

253

vague and general. What can be gained by co-operation will generally outweigh the possible negative consequences for competition.

Dialogic Relationships In what above was called relational-responsive processes. the actors need to · play together' : they need to let Ideas. experiences and much more flow between them. This ' between ' can be seen as an extension of each separate participant: a place where the participant plays out his or her · inner dynamics· and confronts the expressions of the Inner dynamics of the other participants. If thJs were all. the participants would not be able to create much between them that was new. For something new to emerge. ' the space between ' must be assigned more impor­ tance. What is happening between the actors must be seen as acquiring a weight of its own. as becoming a force able to exert a pull on the actors. ' The space between' ls not only a switchboard, ordering the flow of words between the participants. In processes of Innovation there are much broader functions that need to be taken care of In this terrain between the actors. Conversations that are to lead to Innovations are not only single events in social space, they often need to go on over time and in a certain scope. Then, however. 'the space between · cannot only order the here and now. it must also function as an accumulator. or store, adding and sorting points and playing them back into the next conversation. Conversations are not only about · objects · . they are also about themselves. in the sense that they always imply · a conversation about how to conduct a conversa­ tion ' . In terms of choice of words. ways of linking them, patterns of Interaction between the contributions from all the participants and much more. Again. we speak about functions that need to be the subject of collective reflections and there is a need for 'a place' where the outcomes of these reflections live on to be activated and further developed the next time. The core point. however, Is that lt is in conversation that we meet 'the other' . 'The other' may be steered by norms unknown to us or guided by smart and hidden strategies: what we encounter is what the other says. It is the words that are put Into play between the actors which constitute the common ground. For innovation in the modern sense to become possible lt must be generated on this common ground. What happens here must have the force to transcend what the actors bring with them - or are steered by - when they meet. If pre-given norms and strategies fully determine what happens on the common ground no collective change would be possible. Consequently. If innovation Is our interest we cannot stay content with · interpreting ' the actors in terms of what they bring with them, we need to put a main emphasis on what happens when they meet. In principle. relational-responsive processes need a · public space ' : a space to which all concerned have access and where they can relate to each other

254

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

(Palshaugen 1 998a) . There will always be more or less of such a space between actors: such a simple thing as using language to some extent implies entering such a space since there is no private language. However. in working with develop­ ment processes with the aim of strengthening them, it has become common to specifically create shared. or public. arenas to be able to accelerate existing processes or initiate new ones. In the same way as specific patterns of face-to-face groups are sometimes thought to be the building blocks of larger organizations. one may imagine a specific kind of dialogue and dialogue arena to be a basic building block in patterns of relationships, Le. some version or other of the notion of ' dialogue conference ' . While the idea of democratic dialogue on a face-to-face level can function as a point of orientation it would, however. be wrong to elevate it to the status of a pre-structured ' block' with flxed properties. The reason is that a dialogue ' within' a group with no concern for its external conversations can, in important respects, differ from the one which occurs when the group sees itself within a network of conversations with other groups. In the last case, points will , for instance. have to be formulated in such a way as to make them communicable to others. The nature of the communication across the boundaries will. further­ more. vary with context. If we want to build large-scale networks it is necessary to accept some degree of variation between elements. simply to be able to · recruit · . Strict criteria and fixed procedures often mean changing the whole strategy from an interactive one based on horizontal co-operation between equal elements to one of diffusion of a given message. Even if ' the message' pertains to process rather than content, it will be subject to the same problems of diffusion (Gustavsen 2000) . The notion of democratic dialogue must, on the other hand, be present in the relationships, as a reference point. One may decide to make one's own local variant of a dialogue conference, but if this means turning it into something far away from a discussion on equal terms between equal partners, the whole idea of democratic coalition-building evaporates. In actual practice, this can be much of a walk on a tightrope. Such notions as ' democratic dialogue' and ' broad participa­ tion ' are rather alien to many actors in the business community. One may have to accept people entering the action streams of a possible coalition with very weak notions as far as these issues are concerned. not to say negative ones. Sometimes it is more important to get new actors to Join the coalition than to practice democratic purism. On the other hand; they must, subsequently. be exposed to these notions and develop a positive relationship to them. This is possible if there are strong carriers of the notions from before in the coalition, as well as the experience that these ideas can also pay off in business terms. In the debates following the LOM program in Sweden (Gustavsen 1 992) one main objection was that nothing even remotely resembling · democratic dialogue ·

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO ACHI EVE THE UNI QUE

255

is possible In working life. The space between power and interest will be far too narrow. This may, of course, be so. There are, on the other hand pointers in other directions: in all Western democratic constitutions the right to free communica­ tion is one of the cornerstones and although the degree of correspondence between constitutlonal characterlstlcs and enterprise orders may be weak. it Is not necessarily totally absent. Second, there is a growing demand for employee involvement, for the enterprises to survive and grow. Such involvement can be created In different ways. one way being to give the employees ·democratic rights ' In the work place. As far as Norway Is concerned, there is an element of this in the agreement on development (Chapter 4) and not an insubstantlal element, either. There may, of course, be a long way to go to approach a more full blown democratlc order in enterprise level discourses. but the point that the way is long Is no argument against embarking on it; some would say rather the opposite. It Is, furthermore, necessary to have some notion of what a democratic dialogue Implies, however willing one may be to practice this notlon In a flexible way. There Is. consequently, a need for some kind of orientational directives (Shotter and Gustavsen 1 999) with which specific conversations can be confronted (see also RaftegArd 1 998) . Turning to specific efforts to support development, the group discussions within the framework of a dialogue conference can be taken as one point of departure. Each such discuss ion lasts for about one hour and has between four and ten participants, with six or seven as the most typical. When the orientational directives for democratic dialogue are brought In, certain design criteria for this kind of event emerge: there are to be no lectures or talks and time Is to be shared roughly equally between the participants. They are also under the obligation not only themselves to be active In the discussions. but to help the other participants to be actlve as well. These - and other - directives work against ' monologues' and other forms of long contributions of a non-responsive kind. A maJor concern is to get people to play up and respond to each other, to Involve each other in a process of Jointly highlighting points, building arguments, making proposals Shotter and Gustavsen ( 1 999) . There Is a maJor difference between this kind of encounter and one where one actor ' Informs ' the others. The conference Is oriented towards the future. One way of doing thJs Is to open the event by asking the participants to reflect on how they want the future to be, In terms of ' the good work ' , ' the learning organization ' , ' the dynamic region ' , or whatever Is most appropriate. The time horizon Is 3-5 years so as to move beyond the present while staying away from futures so remote that the points tend to be speculative. It Is important to note that what Is asked for Is how the participants would like the future to be, not predictions concerning how lt Is most likely to be. The purpose Is to create a momentum towards the future In the conversations; to underline that all that Is to unfold during the conference has to

256

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

do with how to create an attractive future. Beginning with other Issues - such as what problems do we have - can of course, open a road towards the future. but it can also open a road towards rather different themes. such as allocation of responsibility and blame for what went wrong In the past. When a momentum towards the future Is present. the participants are asked to turn to challenges and problems, but as something one needs to deal with to move Into a desired future. not to make judgments on responsibility for the past. The end product of a conference Is generally not an analysts of the past. nor a scenario for the future. The prefered outcome Is a work agenda. a plan of actlon defining who does what. what other actors need to be brought Into the process , what future arenas to establish and the like. The underlying point Is that we need to work ourselves Into the future, not paint a scenario and gamble on Its fulfill­ ment. Since most action ln the kind of context we discuss here presumes relation­ ships to other people. the work agenda ls also an agenda for the (further) development of relationships. In this way the conference carries Itself Into the future In the sense that it Identifies a follow-up which Is of essentially the same nature as the conference Itself. Much will occur In work groups, project groups, meetings, and other encounters where the conference patterns can be carried on. The sum total of. say, a series of dialogue conferences and related events will then be a continuously expanding network of conversations and relationships: more and more actors are pulled Into the • force field' constituted by a specific discourse on development. It ls through such a continuous expansion of 'one conversation ' - or the continuous linking and synchronization of several conver­ sations - that one may approach the notion of 'region' in a more literal sense. In approaching such ' landscapes of conversations' with a view to achieving some degree of descrlptlon and understanding, one may. for Instance, use the analogy of traffic and see the landscape In terms streams that pass. or go through, points. Such points can be called nodes (Engelstad 1 996) : there may be places were a number of streams, or flows. cross and Interact which can be called J unctions, and so on. There are always dangers with such analogies: one of them Is too strong an association with the widespread notion of lntemet-based Informa­ tion highways. Such highways can certainly support conversational flows and they may even. In the future. become geared to serving dialogues of the kind which today require presence In a Joint arena. Today, however. IT-based Informa­ tion highways generally carry pre-packed information with a given content and not elements of dialogues. Insofar as they serve dialogues they generally do it ln the form of follow-up and support after the event. that Is: after a dialoglc relationship has been established. An Innovation-oriented conversational landscape - or network - will In principle be geared towards continuous self-transcendence: a continuous change and growth In Its own elements and ln Its own 'traffic ' between the elements. ,

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO ACHI EVE THE UNI QUE

257

Each landscape must. furthermore, be approached in the way outlined by Shatter (1 994) and Toulmin ( 1 990) : not with the aim of creating general theory for application elsewhere but with the aim of identlfying characteristics of given landscapes with a view to comparing them to other landscapes: in fact often, through this, to build bridges between them. The points we can make in this context. are · reminders ' . not absolute truths. They are points emerging out of, say, one landscape, that can help orient our attention when we link to another land­ scape. If one landscape demonstrates a certain configuration of actors and conver­ sations one may look for ' the same ' in another landscape, as a way of relating to it. In all likelihood one will not find exactly the same configuration, but not finding exactly the same configuration can give rise to reflections that can be at least as fruitful as those we may make when we find · more of the same ' . The point emerges from several of the modules. where differences between the cases with which they work are used as a way to understand each one of them. e.g. the approach used by Rogaland Research in relating three networks to each other. In placing ' mass ' ahead of ' methodological purity' it follows that the overall formation and growth of a development coalition is not driven purely by one specific type of encounter. Although dialogue conferences can be said to have functioned as one reference point within ED 2000 it is not an approach applied by all the groups, nor have those applicatlons that have occurred followed exactly the same pattern. The point is worth noting since there is a tradition within · organiza­ tion development · . dating back to the 1 950s and the emergence of sensitivity training and related forms of group dynamics, to search for 'the best' kind of encounter to initlate and sustain development processes. To some extent this idea of ' the best ' is taken over by more modem kinds of structured encounters, such as search conferences. It is a mistake to believe, however, that any development process on some scale can be promoted purely through organized encounters of any kind. Going by the ED 2000 experience. dialogue conferences can play a role in the creation of connectedness. provided that there is some kind of momentum in the same direction existlng independently of the conferences. As reported by, for instance, the Work Research Instltute, even in cases where successful conferences have taken place, there are examples of the enterprises deciding not to go ahead. It may. of course. be argued that another version of the conference idea would have fared better. So far, however. there is no convincing evidence from anywhere that one single kind of encounter can overcome all possible hindrances and blockages. Rather, even the conferences have to fit into circumstances as they actually are: they do not remove the need for some kind of interpretation of the context in which the development process is to unfold. On the other hand, in ED 2000 connectedness has been created without the use of specifically designed conferences. Since even conferences have to blend into their background rather than stand apart as something 'entirely different' . it

258

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

follows that even thls idea needs to be given practical expression In an eclectlc way: actually In just the way demonstrated by ED 2000. As pointed out by Engelstad ( 1 996) . it is more important to lnstltute an element of democratlc dialogue in different encounters - project groups, workplace meetings, works councils, co-operation committees etc. - than to put all the eggs In one basket. Any kind of development coalition needs a broad range of encounters and the core issue is to make the encounters function in support of each other in such a way that all constltute nodes In a network type development organizatlon.

The Role of 'The University' This leads us to the Issue of the role of the research Institutions: called 'the unJverslty ' for short, although far from all groups in ED 2000 have been formally located at a university. 'The university ' . however. can be a metaphor for the kJnd of knowledge resource whose participation Is at stake in events like ED 2000. Compared to the idea of ' the university ' in Its 'traditlonal ' sense, an effort like ED 2000 shows four major deviations: First. the efforts of research are directed at dealing with challenges and problems as initially identified by the enterprise actors, not by research. Second, research works In an 'on line' and ' real time' relationship with its partners and not from a distance. Third. even research success is measured on the basis of bundles of practices and interpretatlons created together with other actors, and not on the basis of. say. theoretlcal contributlons alone. Fourth, it becomes a point to be an ' insider' in, say. contexts such as ' learning regions· rather than to stand apart. How dramatic these · deviations' are thought to be varies. even among representatives of 'the university' . There are. on the one hand. still strong defend­ ers of what Is thought to be the · classical ' university while there are. on the other, strong promoters of ideas not unlike those Inherent In ED 2000 . Without being able to pursue these Issues in depth in this particular context, some points may be worth recalling. Within the framework of the generally accepted view on innovation as a process of interaction between a substantial number of actors. lt Is hard to see how · the university' can contribute to innovation and at the same time stand apart from all the other actors. One may stlll find some cases where great ideas emerge from free-floating. university-based research, which can subsequently be turned into economically viable products and services (the so-called linear notion of Innova­ tion) , but these cases are no longer typical. In a recent WhJte Paper written by the Dean of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm (Flodstmm 1 999) . it is argued that the point of depar-

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO ACHI EVE THE UNI QUE

259

ture for innovation policy is the place - or rather: places - where research and enterprises meet: the innovation system. Innovation presupposes some kind of common ground, that is: relationships and some degree of acceptance of Joint interests. Non-related research - however smart - plays little role in today 's innovation processes: even substantial advances in baste research seem largely to provide ' points of orientation' rather than operative knowledge (Meyer-Krahmer 1 996) . It seems ' beyond discussion · that, insofar as the university wants to partici­ pate in innovation processes, it has to become a ' network member' . The only way of staying outside is to stay outside the innovation processes, a consequence which is entirely feasible, but which few seem to draw. The argument is instead that non-related research will provide more useful research in the long run. Even if this were true - which is a point that remains to be substantiated - it would still not prevent a maJor part of the research establishment from having to participate in the innovation processes. Non-connectedness for one would simply be bought at the expense of more connectedness for the other. Given this, rather than discuss the relationship between 'the university ' and ' the enterprise' as one of connectedness or not, i.e . . in an either-or form. the time is ripe for discussing specifics and basing the discussion on practical experience. The problem is not connectedness or not, mutual interests or not. but how far and concerning what. ED 2000 is an effort to approach this field: in a pragmatic way and a way based on creating relationships of co-operation rather than of steering. Clearly. the labor market parties and enterprise representatives could, through their membership in the board of the program, 'decide' over the heads of researchers. But this was nothing new: the labor market partles, business repre­ sentatives, politicians, civil servants and others have always participated on board level in numerous research contexts and exercised the associated power and it is hard to see how this can be avoided if research wants to acquire a substantial share of GNP. What was new in ED 2000 was the Joint responsibility for recruitment of enterprises and for practical action. The labor market parties did not expect research to 'solve problems' , while the parties could watch them from 'up high ' and voice appropriate criticism if the researchers did not work fast or were not smart enough. Rather. through active participation in the program secretariat. and generally also through regional representatives, directly in relation to the mod­ ules, the labor market parties shared responsibility for reaching the goals of the program. A failure would be a failure for research as well as for the parties and not for research only. ED 2000 is based on the acceptance of close co-operation based on Joint interests. It does. however, do this in a certain way: by organizing the researchers in groups rather than in individual roles, each researcher is located within a context of other researchers, admittedly one of modest size and far from sufficient to make the transition from - in the terms of Gibbons et al. (1 994) - a rural to an

260

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

urban landscape. but nonetheless a context that provides some possibilities for working together and facing challenges together. The module pattern also reflects the point that the enterprises with which research works tend to be different: In Interests, strategies and patterns of co-operation with research. Whatever prob­ lems may emerge will. Initially, relate to a module rather than to the whole research - enterprise co-operation. If, however, problems should gain such a momentum that they transcend the module of origin. the link between the mod­ ules makes 1t poss i ble for all the researchers Involved In the program to face the problem collectively. While research has, on the one hand, to accept certain obligations and risks, these risks should be countered by specific organizational mechanisms enabling research to withstand possible negative effects of these obligations. Hypothetically, such negative effects can be of different kinds: the enter­ prises can use their right to define the agenda to put Issues up front with little Interest to research, they can withdraw after maJor Investments of time and effort from research, they can block - or at least try to block - ordinary publications, and much more. One basic Idea behind ED 2000 Is that it Is far easier for research to maintain Its right to fruitful challenges. to get return on Investment and to publish, If each researcher Is part of a broader collective of researchers linked to different groups of enterprises. This Is. of course, true only as long as all the participating enterprises do not put the same pressure on research. There Is little point In pluralism on the user side If the users band together. For this to happen In a population of close to I 00 enterprises, spread from the Arctic coast of Northern Norway to the southemmost tip of the country Is, however. not very likely. A further guarantee against undue pressure Is found In the point that ' the enterprise ' Is labor as well as employers I management and not only one of the parties. While a program organization on the one hand allows for working with a substantial number of partners, 1t also allows for a community between the participating researchers. This community can be more or less strong, and In ED 2000 there were, as can be seen from the self-evaluation reports. some complaints that the potential for creating this kind of community was not fully exploited within the program. Even If the degree of community between the researchers Is limited lt means. however. that there are some possibilities for supporting each other. Within a program framework of the type created In ED 2000 each Individual researcher does not have to face all problems associated with working with ' users ' on his or her own. Responses and perspectives can be worked out collectively and the program bodies can give a hand In arguing these points and perspectives. In discussing ' the freedom of research' there Is a need to consider specifics and operationals of this kind rather than posing the Issues In terms of either-or and In the abstract.

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO ACHI EVE THE UNI QUE

26 1

In actual practice, few conflicts have emerged. The only ones actually reported from the modules are some inctdences of enterprises withdrawing from co-operation due to changes in circumstances external to the project, such as management changes. Even these cases can hardly be seen as 'conflicts ' : they are more a kind of wastage situation, forcing research to write off investments. Rather, it seems possible to argue that the strong program organization, in combination with the substantial number of people, organizations and relationships implicit in the program, has made for an exceptionally smooth running. There has been a struggle to really get into contact, create Joint agendas and work together. but in practically none of the cases has this been owing to ill-will. Rather, if one may use a somewhat worn-out cliche: what we have witnessed in ED 2000 is, par excellence, the efforts of very different · cultures' to get to speaking terms with each other, but through constructive efforts and quite a lot of trial and error. When research starts to share responsibility for a part.Jcular bundle of prac­ tices and interpretations, often in competition with other bundles of practices and interpretations, it moves into an intellectual landscape not unlike the one associ­ ated with the Renaissance (foulmin 1 990) . In this kind of landscape the competi­ tion does not stand between theories, as it came to stand later. with the advent of Descartes. Newton. Hobbes and other bearers of non-worldly rationality, nor purely between practices as in a Sktlls Olympics. but between different combina­ tions of reflections and practices. The one who wanted to move to the forefront of Renaissance innovation needed to stand on a combination of practices and reflections and needed to demonstrate that this part.Jcular combination repre­ sented qualities that located it ahead of others. Nobody could rise to fame purely as a bearer of theory: nobody could, however, rise to fame purely on the basis of arts without reflection. With the enormous growth still taking place in the number of ' universities' and the more and more pronounced policies, be it from local, national or supernational bodies. of ass igning ' the university ' responsibility for helping promote solutions to practical problems - large and small - it is hard to see how the classical - or rather: neo-classical - idea of ' the university ' can be maintained. When it is dropped - and thJs happens step by step, day by day - it should be some consolation that a return to the Renaissance is not such a bad thing. In contrast to the founding time of one-dimensional rationality - the wartorn and barren seventeenth century - the Renaissance was one of the most innovative periods in the history of mankind.

Legitimacy and the 'Soda) Partners' In creating a landscape of developmental relationships we not only deal with a collection of ' micro' units that together form a landscape of roughly equal elements in complex but homogenous relationships. There will, in such a land-

262

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

scape. be different types of actors with different roles and associated differences In the relationships. Some relationships will be working relationships. exlstlng between actors who are Involved In doing something concrete together. Other types of relationships are, however, also possible. In ED 2000 there Is one other type which has played a prominent role: the relationship between the ' local actors' and the labor market parties. Often, the labor market parttes have been partners In the local coall tlons. through regional representatives and program representatives as well. The labor market parties are, however. ' present' In ways that go beyond this. In particular. they are present in terms of ' ideologies' , ' legitimation' and ' history' . The activities released by ED 2000 are parts of the activities generated by the agreement on development and this agree ment Is, In turn. part of a history of co-operation In the labor market. At least In Norway. lt would not have been possible to create a program of the type represented by ED 2000 without this umbrella. ' Legitimacy' and slmllar dimensions perform certain social functions: they contribute to bringing people together to perform certain acts. they make certain alms - such as broad participation - acceptable to actors: they make lt possible for actors unknown to each other to approach each other with a reasonable degree of lnltlal trust and confidence. Even though to fill such functions In concrete settings often calls for the presence of people who are formally authorized to represent the labor market parties. they are not completely dependent upon such presence, nor can presence be a full substitute for a history. ' Legitimacy' can be seen as a ' force field' - as something that Is at work In the social landscape: in fact. something that plays a major role In constituting the landscape. The landscape - or landscapes - within which ED 2000 has been moving would not have existed without this legitimacy. It Is, In other words, actually the prime constitutive force. It Is reasonable to llnk the notion of social partner to the wllllngness to provide legttlmacy to development In co-operation between labor and manage­ ment. What turns a labor market party Into a social partner Is the ablltty to ' lay out· force fields that can attract actors to form development coalltlons between them. ' Social partner' emphasizes, and In a double sense - through social as well as partner - that lt Is a relational term. It says something about how the organization defines Itself relative to others. As pointed out In Chapter 2 (see also Chapters 4 and 5) . when research and the labor market parties met to form ED 2000, there were actually two processes with historical roots meeting: the process behind - and within - the agreement on development and the process of continuous transformation of the relationships between research and working llfe. With the event of ED 2000 these processes which had touched base several times before - entered Into a new relationship with each other. The specific nature and effects of ED 2000 must be seen In the llght of the nature of this meeting place as lt came to be In a specific period of tlme.

INNOVATION : WORK ING TOG ETHER TO A C H I EVE THE UNIQUE

263

In this way the labor market parties came to play a role as actors In a 'developmental landscape ' . They were able to exert a ' pull ' on their own mem­ bers which helped form the modules dealt with previously. To undertake such a role Is - lt can be argued - to make the transition from labor market party to 'social partner' . Social aspects are just those that relate to the relationships between actors rather than the ' Internal characteristics' of each actor and the word ' partnership ' presupposes that there Is someone else present In the same context with whom a relationship of co-operation can be developed. One would hardly see the term ' partnership' as the most appropriate characteristic of a wage­ focused and adversartally-oriented union or employer assoc iation of the old school. Consequently, the ED 2000 experience can be used to demonstrate the notion of social partner. However briefly, we shall recapitulate the Confederation of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Business and Industry not In terms of their characteris­ tics but In terms of the developmental relationships they create between them­ selves, between themselves and their members and between these actor constellations on the one hand and research on the other (Gustavsen 1 993) . The starting point is a joint ob/JgaUon between the partners to improve on

processes on workplace and enterprise level (provide support to development and innovation). What Is often referred to - more or less loosely - as the labor

relations system can contain a number of elements. Almost always there are rules dealing with the constitution of actors, the legal status of agreements, when conflicts are allowed, and so on. More rare are agreements where the labor market parties jointly undertake the task of launching supportive processes for develop­ ment and Improvement In membership enterprises. Often, they have joined public Initiatives In the form of accepting board membership In public Improvement programs and even participated on the more operational side. To take one step further and create a joint agreement placing themselves In the driver's seat Is more rare. Such a formal agreement on development Is not an absolute necessity for the partners to become 'social ' , but lt Is certainly not a disadvantage If this kind of backing can give the partners an Interest In this kind of development and Improve­ ment. From an agreement perspective, research Is a ' third party' . To extend the obligation to encompass research there Is a need for specific additional agree­ ments: these agreements can be expressed In programs In which the social partners and research agree to work together, such as LOM or ED 2000. From central (national) bodies there must emerge a descending order of responsibilities mediated through successively lower levels of organization to ensure that the whole apparatus is mobJ/Jzed. While declarations from the top are

not without value, the ability of such declarations really to gain a grip on reality Is linked to the ability to ' move lt down the line ' . The mediating levels can be branch-based employer associations and national unions. regional representatives

264

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

and so on. They must accept development support as a legitimate part of their roles and aim at becoming involved in specific processes within their own domaJn. WhJ/e central initJaUves must be carried out through a descending order of mediating bodies, it is also necessary to 'build upwards · from the worlcplace level in such a way that the development of coa/JUons which can encompass a number of organizations become possible. The development coalition is the meeting ground between 'top-down ' and 'bottom-up ·. Because of external pressures there

will usually be a momentum towards improvement and development in each workplace and enterprise. From such a momentum being present the distance to becoming an efficient development coalltlon can, however, be a maJor step. The purpose of introducing the kJnd of force field inherent in the agreement on development is to make it possible to convert the pressure, or momentum, into actual development work and give this work a certain direction. The agreement can. in a sense, reach down into the workplace and gain a grip on the workplace actors. This grip is not taken to make them stray from their original intentions, but to set them on a course that can lead them into a coalition with the potential for strengthening their ability to pursue their intentions. Each speciflc development coa/Jtion must ha ve a locatJon in social space.

This is in a sense a truism: even social phenomena must exist somewhere. If we relinquish the belief that knowledge can be carried by autonomous theory. the demand for a locatlon. however, acquires an additional significance: to learn from a development coalition it is necessary to encounter it in practlce, to meet the coalition in terms also of its practlcal existence. And to ' find ' the coalition, there is a need for a definition of where it can be found. The various coalitions must be /Jnked to each other. Such links across development coalitions are still weak within the ED 2000/HF -B populations. On the whole, in promoting the unique and special, they move along different trajectories. In spite of thJs there is a need for something general. This something general is the signals emanating from the central levels of the social partners which provide the legitimacy umbrella for the kind of development processes released by ED 2000. In this, there is a kJnd of dilemma. Fruitful development is assumed initially to be local. This local development is rooted, however. on legitimacy which emanates centrally. This central legitimacy must. in some way or other, express ·generalized wisdom· : it must give expression to something that all the coalitions can have in common. This follows from the simple point that the central level speaks for all, and with the voice of all. And if the central level refraJns from ' speaking about development ' . the legitimacy umbrella is weakened. It is hard to persuade local actors to accept the importance of themes about which their own highest legitimate actors have nothing to say. So far. HF -B has been proceeding by issuing normative statements and leaving it to the levels

INNOVATION : WORK ING TOG ETHER TO A C H I EVE THE UNIQUE

265

below to develop those perspectlves that are dependent upon what experiences are actually encountered. ThJs Is likely to be the maJn road ahead. but there will be a growing need for converting the rather loosely structured elements of the agreement on development and associated actlvltles Into more of a structured value creation strategy for Norway. To some extent this process has started with the launching of ' Value Creation 20 1 0 ' (see Chapter 3). Although there are different versions of the characteristics of modem Inno­ vation systems, there Is an agreement on the point that they constitute complex patterns with a number of different actors. No single group of operational actors can furnish the process as a whole with the requisite legitimacy. If, for Instance, research Is to fill such a functlon. 1t would Imply a belief In some kind of overall reason that could be contributed by research but which could be brought to penetrate the whole process to give lt Its total shape. But a belief In such reason goes against the very notion of multi-actor Innovation systems. There Is conse­ quently a need to consider the Issue of legltlmacy In Its own right. In ED 2000 lt Is the labor market parties which have provided this legitimacy, not only as opera­ tional partners but as Institutional umbrella. In doing this. they have confirmed their role as social partners. The labor market parties are not the only possible sources of legitimacy: political authorities. reglonal lnterest groups and others can perform this function, as emerges from Chapter 6 on European patterns: the point Is that somebody does. Modern Innovation systems are far too complex and demanding organizational constructlons to simply be brought together on an ad hoc basis.

Conclusions In the program document that formed the original background to ED 2000, slx questions were put up as core themes of the program: 1 . How are viable and fruitful development processes to be created at work­ place- and enterprise level? 2. How are development processes I development organization to be linked to each other In a number of enterprises. so that lnterorganlzatlonal processes - networks, dynamic regions and the like - can be formed? 3. How may concepts. frames of reference and International co-operation be developed to facilitate an Improved lntegratlon between Norwegian enter­ prises and the frontline of International developments within areas like quality, logistics, product development, and the like? 4 . What role do the Norwegian I Scandlnavlan tradltlons of labor - manage­ ment co-operation play In strengthening the enterprises In the International competition - If any? Is there a need to restructure the labor relations system and patterns of co-operatlon and partlclpatlon?

266 5.

6.

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS How can business strategies and business ideas be developed that can provide platforms for moblllzlng the employees around the goals of the enterprise? The state I the public offers a number of systems in support of enterprise development. How do these systems work - for instance in terms of ability to support long term and coherent strategic processes at enterprise or net­ work level?

As the reader will note, thJs study has not been organized around these questions and such answers as may be possible. Have these questions lost ln importance? Has the ED 2000 experience implied that other questions have appeared on the agenda? One point in this context Is that these Issues were meant to form some of the points of departure for the research groups. to be dealt with in their studies and analyses. These are generally not yet concluded. but a number are on their way. Since this study does not build on the full material available to the research groups. any effort to answer these questions would have to be preliminary and subject to much later modlflcatlon. However. there is one point on which even the present study can offer some points, namely that concerning how to work with the questions. In the original document, the Issues were given the form of a number of questions of the type 'how Is? ' . ' how can? ' ' how do we understand? ' and ' what do we do? ' . This is the conventional approach to the setting of a research agenda. Even from the beginning of ED 2000 lt was accepted that the research groups would not necessarily arrive at the same answers to these questions (Gustavsen et al. 1 998) . Given that they would work within different coalitions lt was fully possible that general answers would not appear. As lt actually turned out, these questions were subjected to another twist: a change in focus from the questions as such to how to work with them. Excepting the last question, all these themes have been central in the ED 2000 efforts, as emerges from the self-evaluation reports. Most of the efforts of the groups have, however, not been directed at providing straight and direct answers but at creating development coalitions able to work with the questions. When. for instance, the Agder research group makes the point that to relate to international trends - question 3 - there Is a need for a local coalltlon with a certain mass in terms of work capacity, network relationships and research resources the group says something about what Is needed to grapple with the questions. In fact, by saying that there Is a need for a strong local development coalition they make the point that there are no simple general answers: any answers demand strong local development resources just because they have to be worked out locally. 'The answer' , furthermore, does not appear as a broad principle but as responses to myriad challenges and questions. No single Individual, however

INNOVATION : WORK ING TOG ETHER TO A C H I EVE THE UNIQUE

267

rational, can handle all these challenges and make a simple synthesis of how they should be met. Any general points - such as criteria for a quality system - will be points of orientation but they are not the social mechanisms actually needed to do lt. Against this background, the original problem agenda of ED 2000 could be transformed Into the questions that form the background for this book: how to organize for Innovation: how to develop social partnership In the labor market; how to develop participation from all concerned: how to use research In processes of organization and how to work with the future. ED 2000 provides experience of relevance to how to work with these questions. Any concentration of these experiences Into simplified points means to transcend the nature of experience. to turn lt Into abstractions. When this will, nevertheless . be done below. lt Is because the points are not Intended to be fixed truths but points of orientation. As such they are Introduced as an aJd In approach­ Ing new situations, not absolutes. The points are expressed with reference to Innovation processes In general, which means that EO 2000 experience Is blended with other experience. - Innovation processes emerge from the enterprises concerned and the chal­ lenges and possibilities they, themselves. recognize. - Innovation demands co-operation - a ' coalition' - between actors (cf. the notion of · Innovation system ' ) . - The purpose of this coalition Is to make lt possible for a number of actors to pool their resources and work together. - For poo ling and co-operation to be possible, the actors must create a ' public space' to which all have access and where Impulses can meet to form new combinations. - The formation and development of the coalition emerges as a task In Its own right. - The core element In creating a coalition Is to create relationships. or connect­ edness. - The evolution of the coalition Is a part of the Innovation process Itself. - Coalitions can have different ' mass ' . ranging from a handful of people via enterprises. clusters and networks of enterprises. to substantial regions and even global networks. - A coalition moves by Impulses circulating within the coalition and between the coalition and Its environment. - Many of these Impulses have to do with Identifying differences {I.e. between what Is and what can be). - Other Impulses have to do with linking the unlinked to create hybrids. - Overcoming gaps and differences must be experienced as a challenge. not a threat. - Support to overcome the differences must be available, In principle from the same sources as those who help Identify the differences (otherwise challenges

268

-

-

-

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

and remedies will drift apart and the enterprise will end up not with a gap that can be closed but a gap through which lt wlll fall) . The greater the number. quality and speed of the impulses circulating. the more innovative the coalition. lnnovativeness can be strengthened through adding new members with new competencies. by intensifying the use of existing sources and relationships and through further differentiation and enrichment of relationships. In extending existing coalltions and creating new ones, one should in principle be guided by the learning flows of the industrial-economic community (and not by. for instance, concerns such as reaching ' new businesses ' or businesses that have hitherto received llttle support as concerns in their own right) . Research can help make development coalltions more innovative, in particular through adding competence which is complementary to competence repre­ sented by the other actors.

Research that is to support innovation and development must relate to the follow­ ing challenges: - If research is to be a partner in processes of innovation its ' location· within these processes becomes a core element in its own right. The point is not only · to do research ' but to do lt in a specific set of connections to other actors. Research which is to relate to other actors must proceed by dialogue: by responding to others: by offering points that fit the evolutionary dynamJcs of specific conversations. In collective processes, knowledge of significance is relational: exists ln interplay between the actors (and not ' inside · single actors) . To innovate is to strive for the different. the unique. the pattern which does not (yet) exist. The unique often appears as new combinations of existing elements (hybrids) . For research to co-operate with actors who want to innovate. rather than celebrate innovations already reallzed, it has to orient itse If towards the future. At the time ' strategic activities' are undertaken the outcome of the process is not (fully) known. To clarify what is and has been is of interest only insofar as it has a bearing on the future (whlle no future is an exact repllcation of the past) . A chief aim of studies, or mappings. is to bulld bridges between cases, allowing the cases to be used in alternating figure - ground configurations to enhance learning from differences. In learning from differences a balance must be sought between practical experience and conceptual differentiation (the one should not run ahead of the other) . In looking for openings where something new can emerge lt is necessary to relate to practical meanings and patterns of connectedness within each spe-

INNOVATION : WORK ING TOG ETHER TO A C H I EVE THE UNIQUE

-

-

-

269

ctftc coalition. although knowledge about other coaltttons can help see these meanings and connections. The truth. or validity, of material used in the process is checked in many different ways and by many different sources, including practical relevance and social credibility. ' Scientific documentation ' is only one of several poss i ­ bilities. Each view, each point. has a time and a place within the process (if it is to exert an impact on the conversations) . In the dialogues research is a participant on a par with the others. A main function of theory is as reminders. points of orientation, generator of ideas and the like. To contribute to the richness and innovation potential of the conversations, research should be able to play a number of theories and perspectives into the process. Differences between research positions should help clarify and enrich each position and provide platforms for co-operation (and not automatically un­ chain a conflict over 'who is right ') .

While these concerns basically relate to research participating in innovation processes whatever its nature. ED 2000 operated in a speciflc fleld which was, in Chapter 1 , called research on organization. Experience from ED 2000 makes the formulation of some points relative specifically to this kind of research possible: - Research on organization has two main functions: to help deal with problems of organization within a development coalition but also. and perhaps most importantly. to help create the coalition as such. - It will often fall upon research to help make the approaches to the creation of connectedness visible - such as criteria for dialogue that can function as points of orientation in the conversations. - To fulfil tasks of this kind research must play the points into the conversations through its own mode of acting as a conversational partner (and not as a ' lecturer· ) . - Through influencing patterns of organization. research has a direct impact on the coalition and its processes. - At the same time as the impacts are direct they often turn out to be relatively inexpensive compared to many other ingredients in innovation proc esses , i.e. new technologies. - Due to their low cost, organizational improvements can often be a good place to begin for enterprises with little or no experience in co-operation with research. - If organizational processes are based on broad participation. they contribute to competence and involvement in the innovation process for all employees. - Constituting a highly ' rural ' landscape (in the terms of Gibbons et al. 1 994)

270

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

there Is, In bringing research on organization Into Innovation processes as a eo-actor, a need to consider the organization of this research. Whatever pattern Is chosen, a higher degree of co-operation, clustering and network-bulldtng than Is commonly found today Is generally called for. - To fully participate In modern Innovation systems, research on organization has to develop a more pronounced deltvery focus. Whatever courses are set and actions undertaken. 1t can be argued that creating connectedne.ss Is at the core. Whatever the more specific target of the Innovation process, to have more actors partlclpate, more competence to draw upon. more arenas In which to play with Ideas, Is seldom a drawback, not to mention the point that, If trust Is really the core element in getting Innovation processes going - and there Is much to Indicate that 1t actually Is - the existence of relationships Is a deflnttional necessity. 'Trust' does not exist outside relationships. Going by the ED 2000 experience as it has unfolded thus far. the creation of connectedne.ss seems to be the core task for the kind of research that relates to human and organizational Issues which Is, In Itself, often multldlsclpllnary. Clearly. research has other tasks as well, such as offering views on a number of Issues, such as leadership, teamwork. optimal regions and much more. The element common to all the modules and to all the work done within the program Is, however. the creation of the relationships as such: the contacts, or Interfaces, between actors that make them able to perform whatever Innovation they aim at. It would be a mistake to assume that to create connectedness Is a simple task. It has to be remembered that In moving towards 'the Innovative society' we deal with far more than small groups and other ' micro arenas' . We need to grapple with the enterprise as a whole. with groups. clusters and networks of enterprises, with society as a whole and even with large economic areas such as · Europe ' or ' North America ' . There Is no lack of tasks. Furthermore, the Initiation of expand­ Ing relational dynamics. with the potential for creating more and more Innovation, Is perhaps the most difficult task that can be undertaken. Its demands, In terms of practical skills, abllity to sense openings. and mastery of a broad range of theories and perspectives that can help gtve Interpretations and contours to practical events. far outrun simllar demands related to almost any other topic. There Is no single order of connectedness that can guarantee Innovation, there Is no pattern that can be superimposed In a more or less mechanical fashion with Innovation as an ensured consequence. Pulling the above points out of the ED 2000 experience does not mean that all modules can be taken to support of all points. Rather, many are based on experiences and statements made by some of the modules rather than all. Further­ more. If all researchers from ED 2000 were asked to draw up the main points of experience, they would not have been Hkely to produce exactly the conclusions presented above, nor Indeed any other uniform Hst of conclusions.

INNOVATION: WO RKING TOG ETHER TO ACHI EVE THE UNI QUE

27 1

If such lists can still be of value it is because they are not intended to function as absolutes. as requirements fixed in some kind of space of imperatives. but as points to consider when we move within what is, above. called ·a third realm' of research. Within this realm. however, we need to establish some points of reference, some points from which to start. We may chose other points. eventu­ ally. but if we do it is because of reasons which emerge within the same realm. On the other hand, a number of the points cannot claim to have emerged as original ones from ED 2000 but are held in common with a lot of other experience. When the social sciences emerged - as a part of the process of enlighten­ ment - the core aim was to create · fortresses of truth ' . This research should find out ' how things really are· and arm Its guns with the corresponding truth. These fortresses are largely deconstructed today - even the hundreds of thousands of pages of Marxist inspired critical theory hardly provides ammunition for much more than one shot with a peashooter at 'Western society ' . But no matter how well the post-modern and post-structuralist schools of thought have been able to identify the cracks in the walls of the fortresses. they have generally fatled to consider another problem: the core weakness of the scientific fortresses is not the cracks in the walls but the ground on which they stand. This ground is slippery and continuously on the move. because it is made up of human practices. The disappearance of the fortresses leave the practices untouched. What remains to do is to relate to practices: to find ways of working with practical problems in practical contexts that can positively utilize the kind of resource represented by research. And that there is a potential for this is amply demonstrated by ED 2000 . That this hotchpotch collection of researchers, many with no experience at all in working with enterprises, could help reasonably professional managers and employees move ahead - even to a significant degree - was actually to some extent a surprise, even to those who designed the program. Obviously. we did not expect a scandal, but our advance expectations were actually more modest than what was really experienced: mainly that the researchers would be able to create connectedness and get working on some Joint agendas with the enterprises. More substantial impacts on the value creation processes of the enterprises were ex­ pected to emerge in some cases, but hardly throughout the whole program. ED 2000 is, of course, not the only example of what is loosely called ' social research' demonstrating this kind of competence: as emerges from the brief review of European developments (Chapter 6) . ED 2000 is in line with a common trend rather than being a novel exception. We find reason to believe, however, that ED 2000 has added some important experiences - and arguments - in this field. The challenge is how to move on. We do not do this by rewriting theory so that it looks more like being 'about ' practice than traditional theory - like Bordieux ( 1 977) or Foucault ( 1 972) - but by being practical. by taking part.

272

C REATING CONNEC TEDNESS

Does this mean giving up theory? It does not mean giving up intellectual tools, perspectives and resources that can help us find the way in complex landscapes. but we must not forget that ultimately all social theory is about human practices and should never outrun these practices. We may still create methods and techniques, but they must follow the evolution of the practices they aim at, rather than try to freeze practices to fit a given methodology. Looking back at ED 2000 the core challenge may perhaps be seen as finding the new in the trivial ; In Identifying the unique in the banal. However much we now want to focus on Innovation. most of what happens in most enterprises at most times is trivial and repetitive - In action terms as well as in terms of the reasons In which the acts are discussed. Out of these vast seas of the trivial there emerges - and has always emerged - new patterns. new ideas. new products, new ways of organizing. Insofar as research has a role to play. it Is not in maintain the established patterns, but in seeing what can be done differently. what can be eked out of the everyday world to be able to transcend it, what can be done to link the unlinked: what can be done to open new doors. establish new relationships.

References

Abell, P. 1 978. "Hierarchy and Democratic Authority.· In: Bums. T.. Karlsson. LE. and Rus. V. (eds.) : Work and Power. Studies in International Sociology. London: Sage. Alasolnl. T. and Kyllenen. M. (eds.) 1998: The Crest of the Wave. Helsinki: National Work­ place development programme. Ashelm. B. T. 1 995. ·samarbeid som konkurransefortrtnn: lnteraktiv lzrtng i en post-fordlstik ekonoml." Tidsslcrift for Samfunnsforslcning 36 (3) : 389-402. Asheim. B. T. 1996. Industrial Distrtcts as ·Leamtng Regions" : a Condition for Prosperity? European Planning Studies. 4: 379-400.

Aslaksen. K. ( 1 999) . "Strategies for Change In Corporate Settings: A study of Diffusion of Organisational Innovations In a Norwegian Corporation... Doctoral Dissertation no. 22. 1 999. Trondheim: The Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management Bakhtln, M. M. 1 986. Speech Gmres and Ot�r Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press Bakhtln, M. M. 1 993. Toward a Philosophy ofAct. Austin: University of Texas Press. Berggren. C .. Brulln. G. And Gustafsson, L-L 1998. Fnln /tal/en tU/ Gnosjs: Om det sociala kapitalets betydelse fsr livs/craftiga Jndustriella regioner. Stockholm: IUdet fer Arbetslivs­ forskning. Bolweg. J. 1976. ]ob Design and Industrial /kmocracy. Leiden: NUhoff Bordieux, P. 1 977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Braverman. H. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press Brulln. G. 1 998. ·The New Task of the Swedish Universities: Knowledge Formation In Interactive Co-operation with Practitioners." Concepts and Transformation. 3(2) : 1 1 3- 1 27 Brulln. G. & Halvarsson. D. 1 998. "Coalitions Between University Colleges. lntennedlartes and SME's to Develop Regional Economies and Working Life. .. In: Ennals. R. & Gustavsen. B. Work Organization and Europe as a Development Coalition. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamtns. Colbjemsen. T. and Falkum. E. 1997. ·corporate Efficiency and Employee Participation." In: Gustavsen.B .. Colbjemsen. T. and PMshaugen. 0. (eds.) . Development Coalitions in Woli­ Jng Life. Amsterdam/Phtladelphta: John Benjamtns. Cossenttno, F.. Pyke. F.and Sengenberger. W. (eds.) 1 996. Local and Regional Response to Global Pressure: T� Case of Italy and its Industrial Distrlcts. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies. Dorfman. H . 1 957. Labour Relations in Norway. Oslo: The Norwegian joint Committee on Social Policy. Edqutst. C. (ed.) 1997. Systems of Innovation. Technologies. Institutions and Organizations. London I Washington: Ptnter. Elden. M. 1983. · Democratization and Participative Research In Developing Local Theory." .

Journal of Occupational Behavior. 4 ( 1 ) : 2 1 -34.

Emery. F. E.. 1 957. · characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems. " Doe. No. 527. London: Tavtstock. Emery. F. E. and Thorsrud. E. 1 969. Form and Contmt in Industrial Democracy. London: Tavtstock Publications.

274

C REAT ING CONNECTEDN E SS

Emery. F. E. and Thorsrud, E. 1 976. Democracy at Work. Lelden: Nijhoff. Engelstad. P.H. 1995. ·Fra dialogkonferanser til utvikllngsorganlsasjon. • 1: Elkeland. 0. and Finsrud. H.D .. red. Research in Action!Forskning og handling. Oslo: lbe Work Research Institute' s Publication Series 1/95 : 1 6 1 -2 1 0. Engelstad. P.H. 1 996. •The Development Organization as Communicative Instrumentation: Experiences from the Karlstad Program. · In: Toulmln, S. and Gustavsen. B. (eds) . Beyond Theory. Changing Organizations through Participation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 89- 1 1 8. Engelstad. P. H. and Gustavsen. B. 1 993. ·A Swedish Network Development for Implementing a National Work Reform Strategy.· Human Relations 46(2) : 2 1 9-248. Engelstad. P.H. and 0degaard. L. A. 1 979. "Partlclpatlve Redesign Projects In Norway: Summarising the First Five Years of a Strategy to Democratise the Design Process in Working Life. " In: The Quality of Working Life Council: Worlcing with the Quality of Working Life. Lelden: Nljhoff. Engestrem. Y. 1 993. ·Developmental Studies of Work as a Testbench for Activity Theory: The Case of Primary Care Medical Practice. · In: Chalklin. S. and Lave. ]. (eds.) : Unckrstanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ennals. R. & Gustavsen. B. 1 999. Work Organization and Europe as a Development Coalition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamlns. EPOC research group. 1 997. New Forms of Work Organization: Can Europe Realise its Potential? Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Working and Living Conditions. Flnne H .. Levin M. og Nilssen. T. 1 995. "Trailing Research: A Model for Useful Program Evaluation: Evaluation. 1 (1 ) : 1 1 -3 1 . Flnne. H. . lversen. A. Og Svarva. A. 1997. ·Evaluering av HF-B for avtaleperloden 1 9941 997: Trondheim: SINTEF-IFIM. Flnne. H .. Lynne Hansen. P .. og Hunn. L. K. 1 998. ·Bu 2000 evalueres: Lepet er halvgatt og vi er I rute: Bedre &drift. 1 : 36-37. Flnsrud. H.D. 1 995. ·How about a Dialogue? The Communicative Perspective Meets the Socio-Ecologlcal perspective: In: Elkeland. 0. and Flnsrud. H.D. (eds) . . Research in Action/Forskning og hand/Jng. Oslo: The Work Research Institute's Publication Series 1 / 9 5 : 297-329. Flnsrud. H. 1998. "On the Construction of Collaborative Infrastructures for Enterprise Devel­ opment. " Paper. International Association of Applied Psychology conference. San Fran­ cisco. 9.- 1 4. August. 1 998. Foucault. M. 1 972. The Archeology ofKnowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon. Flodstrmn. A. 1 999. •utredning om vissa myndigheter. " Stockholm: Nzrlngsdepartementet. Frankenhauser. M. and Gardell, B. 1 976. "Underload and Overload In Working life: Outline of a Multldlscipllnary Approach. " Journal of Human Stress. September issue. Frlcke. W. 2000. "Twenty Five Years of German Research and Development Programs Humanisation of Work/Work and Technology. " Concepts and Transformation. 5 ( 1 ) : 1331 38. Gibbons. M.. Llmoges. C .. Novotny. H .. Schwartzmann. S .. Scott. p. and Trow. M. 1 994. The /Jt'W Production of Knowledge - the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Glllesple. R. 1 99 1 . Manufacturing Knowledge. A History of the Hawthome Experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greenwood. D. ]. & Levin M. 1 998. An Introduction to Action Research. London: Sage. Gustavsen. B. 1980. ·Improvement of the Work Environment: A Choice of Strategy. " Interna­ tional Labour Review. 1 1 9(3) : 24 1 -286.

275

REFERENC ES

Gustavsen. B. 1 985. "Technology and Collective Agreements: Some Recent Scandlnavian Developments. Industrial Relations Journal. 1 6 (3) : 34-42. Gustavsen. B. 1 992. Dialogue and Development Assen : van Gorcum. Gustavsen. B. 1 993. "Creating Productive Structures: The Role of Researc h and Development In: Naschold. F .. Cole, E .. Gustavsen. B. and Belnwn. Hans van: Constructing the New Industrial Society. Assen: van Gorcum. Gustavsen. B. 1996. ·Development and the Social Sciences. An Uneasy Relationship. .. In: Toulmin. S. and Gustavsen. B. (eds.) : Beyond Theory: Changing Organisations Through Panicipation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamlns. Gustavsen. B. 1 996 "Is Theory Useful?'" Concepts and Transformation. 1 ( 1 ) : 63-77. Gustavsen. B. 2000 . "lbeory and Practice: The Mediating Discourse. ·In: Reason. P. and Bradbury. H (eds.) : Handbook ofAction Research. London: Sage. Gustavsen. B .. Colbjemsen. T. and Palshaugen. " (eds.) . 1 997. Development Coalitions in Woifing life. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gustavsen. B. & Engelstad. P.H. 1 986. •the Design of Conferences and the Evolving role of Democratic Dialogue In Changing Working Llfe. R Human Relations. 39(2) : 1 0 1 - 1 1 6. Gustavsen. B. . Hofmaier, B.. Ekman Phlllps. M. And Wlkman. A. 1 996. Concept-driven Development and the Organisation of the Process of Change. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamlns. Gustavsen. B. and Hunnius. G. 1 98 1 . New Patterns of Work Reform. The Case ofNorway. Oslo: Oslo University Press. Habennas, J . 1 973. Theory and Practice. Boston: Beacon Press. Habennas. j. 1984/87. The theory ofcommunicative action. London: Polity Press. Hanssen Bauer. j. 1 997. " Networking to Learn In Nordvest Forum: OpUmlzing the Learning Cycle of a Regional Learning Network through Action Researc h. .. In: Gustavsen. B .. Colbjornsen. T. and Palshaugen. "· (eds.) . Dwelopment Coalitions in Wortlng Life. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hanssen Bauer. j. and Snow. C .. C. 1 996. ·Responding to Hypercompetition: The Structure and Processes of a Regional Learning Network Organization. Organization Science 7 (4) : 4 1 3427. Herzberg. F.B .. Mausner. B. and Snyderman . B. 1 959. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wlley. Johansson. A. 1 989. Tillvaxt och klassamarbete. En studie av den svenskd mode/Jem uppkomst. Stockholm: Tlden. Karasek. R. and Theorell. T. 1 990. Healthy Wart. Stress. Productivity and the Recoi1Struction of Woifing Life. New York: Baste Books. Karlsen. B. 1999. ·Reflekslvitet: Personllge bemerkninger I teoretlsk forkledning.'" l: Elkeland. 0. & Fossestsl. K. (Red.) : Kunnskdpsprodu/csjon i endrlng. Oslo: Arbeldsforsknlngs­ lnstltuttets Skrtftserte: 6 1 -76. Latour. B. 1 996. Aramis. or the Love of Technology. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press. Lemlnsky. G. 1 997. ·an the Relationship between Social Science. Participation Processes and Changes In Industrial Work in Germany: Observations from a Trade Union Perspective." Concepts and Transformation. 2(3) : 255-268. Levi. L. (ed.) 1 97 1 . Society. Stress and Disease. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lewtn. K. 1 946. • Action Research and Minority Problems. " Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 2: 34-36. Lewtn. K. Llppltt, R. And White. R K. 1 939. ·Patterns of Aggressive Behaviour ln Experimen­ tally Created Social Climates: Journal ofApplied Psychology. 10: 27 1 -299. Lundvall. B. A. (ed). 1 992 . National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Ptnter. R

R

-

R

276

C REATING CONNECTEDN ESS

Mazzonts. D. 1 998. "The Changing Role of ERVET In Ernllia-Romagna ... In: Ennals. R. and Gustavsen, B. : Work Organization and Europe as a Development Coalition. Amsterdam! Philadelphia: John Benjamins. McCarthy. T. 1 976. The Critical Theory of]urgen Habermas. Boston: MIT Press. McCarthy. T. 1 996. " Pragmatlzlng Communicative Reason. " In: Toulmin. S. and Gustavsen. B. (eds.) : Beyond Theory: Changing Organisations through Participation. Amsterdam: John Benjamlns. Meyer-Krahmer. F. 1997. "'Science-based Technologies and Interdtsclplinarlty: Challenges for Firms and Policy. .. In: Edqutst C. (ed.) : Systems of Innovation. London: Plnter. Mlkkelsen. L.N. 1 996a. "'Building an Infrastructure for Improvement: In: Yearbook 1 996. Helsinki: 1be Finnish National Workplace Programme. Mlkkelsen. lars N. 1 996b. ·counting on the Dialogue. An Industrialist's Theories on how to Cultivate the local Practice of a Supplier to the International Motor Vehicle Industry." Concepts and Transformationl ( l ) : 1 2 1 - 134. Naschold. F. 1993. "'Organization Development: National Programmes In the Context of International Competition. · In: Naschold, F .. Cole. R.. Gustavsen. B. and Belnum. Hans van: Constructing the New Industrial Society. Assen: van Gorcum. Nelson, R R. and Winter. S. 1982. An evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambrigde. Mass.: Harvard University Press. Oscarsson , B. 1997. 25 Ar fer Arbetslivets Femyelse. Stockholm: Ridet for Arbetsllvs­ forsknlng. Porter. M. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmlllan. Pratorius. G. 1988. · Reson - a Development Coalition within a Regional Innovation Net­ work." In. Ennals, R. And Gustavsen. B. (eds.) . : Work Organization and Europe as a Development Coalition. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamlms. Palshaugen. 0. 1995. Bred medvirkntng - en rislkofylt lnvestering? &dre &drift 4/95. Palshaugen. 0. 1 996a. Hoyrtslko tll lavprts: FoU-samarbeld om bedrlftsutvlkling. Bedre &drift 3196. Palshaugen. 0. 1996b. "'This is not the Whole Story . . On the Demand for Scientific Reports from Action Researc h ... In: Toulmin. S. and Gustavsen. B. (eds) : Beyond Theory. Changing Organizations through Participation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamlns. Palshaugen. 0. 1996c. "'Globaler Wettbewerb und lokale Entwlcklungsorganlsation . .. 1: Denisow. X .. Fricke.W. and Stieler- Lorenz. Q. (Hrsg.) . Partizipation und Produktivitat. Zu einigen Kulturellen Aspekten der Okonomie. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert-Stlftung. Palshaugen. 0. 1998a. The End of Organization Theory? Amsterdam: John Benjamlns. Palshaugen. 0. 1 998b. "Organization Development through Development Organization. " In: Gustavsen, B .. Colbjornsen. T.. PMshaugen. 0. (eds) : Development Coalitions in Working life. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamlns. Palshaugen. 0. and van Belnum. H. 1 996. " Introducing Concepts and Transformation" . Con­ cepts and Transformation I ( I ) : I - 13. Palshaugen. 0. and Qvale. T. U. In prep. " Research and Enterprise Development. " Qvale, T.U. 1 994. "'The Case of SBA: The Norwegian Work Ufe Centre (1 988-93) ." In: Kaupplnen. T. and lahtonen. M. (eds.) : National Action Research Programmes in the 1990 's. Helsinki: labour Policy Studies. No. 86: 1 5 7- 1 76. Qvale. T.U. 1995. " Organizing for Innovation: From Individual Creativity to learning Net­ works." In: Ford, M .. Glola. D.A. (eds) : Creative Action in Organizations. London: Sage: 248-253. Qvale, T. U. 1 996. "local Development and Institutional Change: Experience from a "Fifth Generation" National Programme for the Democratization of Working life: In: Drenth. P.j.D .. Koopmann. P.l. and Wllpert. B. (eds.) : Organizational Decision-making under different Economic and Political Conditions. North-Holland: Koninklljke Nederlandse Akademle van Wetenschappen: 29-42. .

277

REFE RENC ES

Qvale. T. U. 1 998a. ·The Democratization of Work and the Democratization of Society. Some Reflections after 35 years of Partlclpatlve Action Research: What did we learn?" Paper. Conference on uWays to Social Peace In Europe·. University of Osnabruck. 1 1 .- 14. November 1998. Qvale. T.U. 1 998b. u Fiexiblllty In Work In Europe: Summary of Survey Findings from Union Federations for Professional and Managerial Staff in the EU. " EUROCADRES symposium on "Work, Organization. New Technology and Flexibility, Challenges for Professional and Managerial Stafr . Vienna. 29.-30. October 1 998. Qvale. T.U. 2000. •JNPRO: An Interdtsclpllnary PhD Program in Process Industries to Change the Education of Engineers as well as the Relationship between University and Industry. In: Baburoglu, 0. and Emery, M. (eds.) : Educational Futures. Istanbul: Sabancl University Press. (In press) . Raftegard. K 1 998. Prate/ som demolcratiskt verktyg. Gothenburg: Gtdlunds Ferlag. Reason. P. and Bradbury, H. (eds.) . 2000. Handbook ofAction Research. London : Sage. Research Council of Norway. 1 996. ·Enterprise Development 2000. Conceptually Managed Productivity Development and Organizational Renewal In Working Life: Programme Memorandum. Oslo. Reve, T. 1 994. ·skandlnavtsk organlsasjon og ledelse. Fra konkurransefordel ttl konkurranseulempe?· Tidsslcrifl for Samfunnsfors/cning. 34 (4) : 568-- 5 82. Reve, T .. Lensberg.T. og Grunhaug, K. 1 992. Et konkurransedyktig Norge. Oslo: Tano. Rhenman. E. 1 964. Fsretagsdemolcrati oeh fsret;Jgsorganisation. Stockholm: Nordstedt. Roethll.sberger. F. S. and and Dlckson, W. j. 1 939. Mana�mmt and the Worker. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J. 1 939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical. Historical and Statistical Analysis of The Capitalist Process (vols I and 2) . New York: McGraw Hill. Schan. D. A. 1 983. The R�ectiVP Practitioner. New York: Basle Boo ks. Selye. H. 1 957. The Stress of Life. London: Longmans. Shatter. j. 1 994. ConVPrsationa/ Realities. London: Sage. Shatter. j. and Gustavsen. B. 1 999. The Role of Dialogue Conferences in the Development of ·Learning Regions" : Doing ·From Within" Our Lives Together J.fllat We Cannot Do Apart. Stockholm: Centre for Advanced Studies In Leadership. Stockholm School of Economics. Stmon, H. A. 1 947. Administrative Behavior. New York: McMUian. Snow. C. C. and Hanssen Bauer, j. 1 993. · Nordvest Forum Evaluation Study Report. " Oslo: The Norwegian Work Life Centre. Sommerhoff. G. 1950. Analytical Biology. London: Oxford University Press. Toulmin. S. 1 990. Cosmopo/Js. The Hidden Agmda of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Toulmin. S. 1 996. "Concluding Methodological Reflections. " In: Toulmln. S. and Gustavsen. B. (eds.): Beyond Theory: Changing Organisations Through Participation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamtns. Trlst, E. L. 1 982. "lbe Evolution of Soclotechnlcal Systems as a Conceptual Framework and as an Action Research Program.· In: Ven. X. van de and Joyce. F. W. (eds.) : Perspectives on Organization Design and Behavior. New York: John WUey. Trlst, E. L. and Bamforth, K. W. 1 95 1 . " Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coalgettlng. Human Relations, 4: 3 38. Uhlln. A.. Rangne, j. and Synnevag. M. 2000 . "Facilitating Innovation Systems. · Paper presented to ·The Triple Helix 111· Conference, Rio de Janeiro. 26 - 28 Aprll 2000. Vollmann. T. E .. Cordon. C. and Raabe, H. 1 995. •From Supply Management to Demand Chain Management." Lausanne: /MD Perspectives for Managers. No. 9. Womack. j.P.. Jones. D. T. and Roos. D. 1 990. The Machine that Chan� the World. New York: Rawson Associates. Woodward, j. 1 965. /ndustrial Organisation: Theory andpractice. London: Oxford University Press. -

Ind ex

A Action research 8- 1 1 . 1 4 . 27. 35. 43. 1 28. 1 3 1 - 1 32, 1 37- 1 39. 1 40, 1 50, 1 52. 1 98, 20 1 , 2 1 8. 234 , 266 Agder module 32 , 1 73- 1 89. 246, 266 Agder Research Foundation 1 73- 1 89 Agder University College 1 73- 1 89 ANACT (France) 1 10 B Basle Agreement 7. 16, 2 1 . 74, 76. 1 37 Benchmarklng 1 5. 1 6. 38. 39. 40. 56. 6 1 , 65. 1 1 5- 1 1 6, 1 22. 1 6 1 . 1 87. 2 1 0, 2 1 6. 236, 244-245. 248 c Clothing industry 8 1 . 109- 1 1 2. 1 80- 1 8 1 Competence 4. 5. 26. 47. 5 1 . 53, 59, 86, 9 1 . 1 03, 1 05. 1 24, 130. 1 46, 1 78. 180, 1 96 Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO) 1 4 , 2 1 . 24, 30. 40-43. 68. 73-83, 1 1 7. 1 29, 1 37. 1 47 Conferences 40, 75-78, 79, 98. 1 34, 1 4 1 1 46, 1 73. 2 1 0, 253-258 Continuous improvement 2. 1 1 . 27. 106, 1 1 9, 1 20. 1 23- 1 24 . 1 32. 1 47, 209. 233239, 249 CO-operation councils 2 1 , 46-47, 74-76, 1 34 Crttical �s 1 3. 63. 64-66. 1 1 0, 234236, 243. 246. 252-254. 267 D Development agreement (HF-B) 1 6. 22. 24. 28. 34, 40, 73-83, 78. 100. 1 19, 1 44. 234, 255. 26 1 -265 Development coalition 5- 1 1 . 26, 29, 62, 64. 68, 80, 83, 1 02. 1 05, 1 1 1 - 1 1 3, 1 23. 1 30, 1 69. 1 76, 1 78, 180- 1 89. 2 1 5, 224. 245, 249. 250-252, 257, 264. 266-269

Development organization 52. 57. 1 04, 1 37- 1 57, 1 66. 236, 245-247, 265 Development research 89 Dialogue/democratic dialogue 1 4 , 1 5 , 23, 50. 60, 94-97, 1 07. 1 1 2. 1 38- 1 39. 1 4 1 1 46, 1 5 1 - 1 52. 1 55. 1 98. 200, 22 1 . 224. 234, 236. 253-258 Dtffusionldlssemlnatlon 2. 3, 56, 69. 87. 88. 99, 1 06. 1 20, 1 22. 1 25-1 27, 1 32. 1 48, 2 1 0. 2 1 8, 234-236. 242, 254 E Englneerlngl Industry/metals Industry 1 5. 69. 82, 1 06. 109, 1 1 7- 1 35. 1 4 1 - 147. 1 96, 2 1 0 Enlightenment 89, 92-93, 24 1 F Fafo-NHH module 32. 2 1 8-228 Finland 65. 1 06- 1 07. 1 1 2 Field experiments 16. 26. 69, 70, 75. 8788. 9 1 . 95, 207. 242 Fish process ing Industry 1 5. 30. 32. 69. 1 59- 169, 2 1 0. 250 Flshertes Research Institute 159- 1 69 Food processing industry 8 1 -82, 1 44- 145 Forum for New Concepts in Process Industry 1 48 France 1 1 1 Fund for lndustrtal and Regional Develop­ ment (Norway) 68 Furniture Industry 82. 1 9 1 -202. 208 G Gennany 1 07- 108 Globalization 9. 1 5. 36. 38. 55. 64, 79, 1 02. 1 29. 1 33, 1 54. 1 74- 1 75. 187- 188, 1 99, 2 1 7-2 1 8. 226, 247. 249, 250. 252 H Hands-on research 29, 36, 67, 1 1 2. 20 1

280

C REATING CON NECTEDNESS

Health and safety (in work) 9, 22. 36, 58. 9 1 -94. 98, 1 1 8- 1 26. 1 28, 1 44- 1 45. 1 48. 166. 197, 220. 235 Human Relations school 86 Hybrid 1 3. 249. 267-268

Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration 30. 40-43. 2 1 2-2 1 3. 2 1 9-228 Norwegian Work Life Centre 22. 24. 1 47, 203

I Innovation system 2. 6. 1 1 - 1 4. 46-47. 67. 70. 1 1 6. 1 56, 1 75. 23 1 -272 Institute of Applied Social Science (Fafo) 30. 2 19-228 Ireland 1 1 2 Italy I 09- 1 1 0, 1 1 2- 1 1 3 IT -Industry 1 73. 1 76, 1 79

0 Occupational health services 9 1 . 93 Offshore Industry 1 1 7- 1 35 . 1 4 7- 1 50. 1 9 1 -202 On-line research 37. 66. 92. 1 39. 1 52. 240. 258

L Labour Inspection 9 1 -93 Labour process school 86 Learning organization 77. 1 6 1 . 198- 1 99, 238. 245. 255 Learning region 8. 16, 25-26. 29. 36, 52 . 57. 62. 64, 69. 1 0 1 - 105. 1 08- 1 09. 1 20. 1 30, 1 38. 1 69, 1 88. 207, 2 1 2-2 1 5. 232, 235. 238. 243, 245. 247. 255. 258-259. 263, 265. 270 Logistics 25. 33. 4 1 . 93. 1 1 1 , 1 44. 2 10. 235. 236. 25 1 , 254 LOM program 65. 94-98, 1 0 1 . 104. 1 1 51 28. 1 82. 203-205, 243. 263

p Participation/broad participation 1 . 7. 8. 14. 1 5. 1 7. 22. 25. 26, 36. 45-49. 47. 53. 56-57. 68-69. 76. 77. 80, 1 04. 1 1 91 23. 1 26, 1 29. 1 34, 1 38. 1 40. 1 43- 1 48. 1 54. 1 6 1 . 1 66, 1 74- 1 75. 1 80- 1 88. 209. 2 1 0. 2 1 5-2 1 8. 22 1 -223. 254. 262. 269 Pilot program/prototype program 26, 56. 98. 99 Process Industry 32. 8 1 . I l l . 1 47- 1 50. 1 9 1 -202 Product development 1 . 1 2 . 1 5 . 25. 33. 4 1 . 49. 53. 55. 1 09. 1 24. 1 43. 1 75. 2092 1 0. 250. 265, Production 1 . 3. 39, 55. 1 06. 109, 1 1 2. 209-2 1 0. 239 Productivity 3, 9. 1 2. 1 5 . 25. 4 1 . 74, 8586. 106. 1 22. 1 24. 1 45. 1 75 Project co-ordinators 75. 77-78. 79 Project organization 43. 53-54, 55. 65, 67, 75. 78. 95, 98, 1 42-1 43. 1 47. 256.

M Management/leadership I . 2. 24, 27. 30. 4 1 -4 2. 46-47. 53. 75. 78, 1 0 1 . 103, 104- 106, 1 09. 1 1 9- 1 20. 1 23- 1 25. 1 28- 1 29, 1 40- 1 43. 1 46- 1 50, 1 59- 1 60, 1 67. 1 73. 1 79, 1 84. 1 87. 1 92. 1 98. 203, 205, 208. 2 1 0, 2 1 4-2 1 7. 220-223. 25 1 . 26 1 . 270. 27 1 Module 10. 1 6. 26. 29. 30, 3 1 . 34. 35. 36. 37. 57, 65-67, 94. 1 1 7-228, 235-236. 259-26 1

Q

N New economy 4. 6. 9. 67 Nordvest-Forum module/network 32. 20 I , 203-2 1 8, 246, 25 1 Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) 1 4 . 2 1 . 24. 30. 40-43. 68. 73-83. 1 37

R Relational-responsive situations 20 1 . 239. 244-247. 253-258. 268 Researc h Council of Norway 1 4. 2 1 . 2327. 28. 3 1 . 34, 66, 68. 107. 1 47- 1 48. 1 67- 168, 206 Researc h Driven Programs 28. 205 Rogaland module 32. 52. 1 1 7- 1 35, 246. 252. 257

Quality/quality management/quality control 1 5. 25. 33, 4 1 . 1 24- 1 25. 1 33, 1 44. 1 47. 1 82. 1 84. 1 87. 209, 2 1 7. 235, 240. 25 1 . 267,

28 1

INDEX

s Service Industry 32, 1 30 Shipbuilding Industry 32, 1 9 1 -202 Social partners/social partnership 1 . 7. 14. 1 6- 1 7. 43. 46, 6 1 , 63-64 , 66. 73-83. 1 05, 1 05. 1 1 . 1 1 3, 1 1 9, 1 30- 1 32. 1 34, 1 37, 198. 232, 26 1 -265. 267 Socla-technlcal design 1 6. 27, 69, 86-88, 1 04, 1 47. 1 84. 200 Sunnhordland Industry Network (IFS) 1 1 7- 1 35 Sweden I 04- 1 06. I l l SYNERG I network 1 1 8- 1 35 T TESA network 1 1 8- 1 35, 25 1 Taylorism 85-86, 1 08 Trornse module 32. 1 59- 1 69, 246 Trondheim module 32. 1 9 1 -202. 246 Team work/group work 8, 1 6 , 27, 47. 54, 65. 77, 86- 87. 98. 1 06- 1 07, 1 42. 1 45, 1 49, 1 56. 1 6 1 . 1 75. 1 84, 1 93. 243, 256257, 270 Technology 1 2 . 23. 25. 27. 42. 52 , 53, 5556. 60 , 62, 64, 75, 1 0 1 . 1 08, 1 1 0. 1 1 2, 1 20. 1 24. 1 43, 1 4 7. 1 92. 1 94. 1 98, 200. 20 1 , 245. 269

u Union/trade union 1 6. 27. 30. 42. 46-47. 59. 75. 93, 1 08- 1 09. 1 1 9, 1 23. 1 42, 1 48, 1 50. 1 67, 1 84. 1 86, 1 92. 2 1 6 United Kingdom I l l University of Science and Technology 1 47- 1 50, 1 9 1 -202. 205. 2 1 2 University of Trolll58 1 59- 1 69 User-driven programs 28 V Value generation chain 26. 1 5 . 52. 56, 1 42, 203. 209. 2 1 7 w Work Environment Fund 1 1 7. 1 29 Work Environment Fund (Sweden) 98. 1 04- 1 05 Work Life Fund (Sweden) 98, 1 04- 1 05. Work organization 62, 64, 75, 87, 1 0 1 1 05, 1 08- 1 09. I l l . 1 1 3. 1 38, 1 44. 1 55, 220, 223. Work Researc h Institute module 32. 1 371 57' 20 1 . 246. 257

In the series DIALOGUES ON WORK AND INNOVATION the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publlcatton: 1 . NASCHOLD. Frleder and Casten VON OTIER: Public Sector Transformation: Rethlnlc­ ing Markns and Hi�rarchies in Govenun�nt. 1 996. 2. TOULMIN. Stephen and Bjom GUSTAVSEN (eds) : Beyond Theory. Changing organiza­ tions through participation. 1 996. 3. GUSTAVSEN. BJom, Bemd HOFMAIER. Marlanne EKMAN PHILIPS and Anders WIKMAN: Conc�pt-Driv�n Development and the Organization ofthe Process ofChange. An evaluation of the Swedish Working Llf� Fund. 1 996. 4. MERRELYN. Emery: �arching. Th� theory and practice of making cultural change. 1 999. 5. PAlSHAUGEN. 0yvtnd. Bj0rn GUSTAVSEN, Dag 0STERBERG and John SHOITER: The End of Organization Theory? Language as a tool in action research and organiza­ tional d�v�lopment. 1 998. 6. GUSTAVSEN. 8j0rn. Tom COLBJ0RNSEN and 0yvlnd PALSHAUGEN (eds) : Devel­ opment Coalitions in Worting Llf�. Th� 'Entnpris� Developm�nt 2000 Program in Norway. 1 998. 7. ENNALS. Richard and BjOm GUSTAVSEN: Won Organization and &rope as a Devel­ opment Coalition. 1 999. 8. GREENWOOD. Davydd J_ (ed.) : Action R�s�arch. From practic� to writing in an int�ma­ tional action lf!S�arch d�v�lopment program. 1 999. 9. VAN BE I NUM. Hans (ed.) : Ideas and Practices in Action Research. An institutional journey. n.y.p . 1 0. KALLIOLA. Satu and Rtsto NAKARJ (eds.) : R�sources for R�newal. A participatory approach to the mod�m.Jzation of municipal organizations in Finland. 1 999. 1 1 . [JUNG BERG VAN BEINUM. lngrld: Using the Lamp Jnst�ad ofLoolcing into the Mirror. Women and m�n in discussion about the r�lationship benveen men and women in the work plac�. 2000. 1 2 . MUNTIGL. Peter, Gilbert WEISS and Ruth WODAK: European Union Discours�s and Ul1fflplo l j'(Al11ftfl . An int�rdisciplinary approach to �mployment policymaking and organi­ zational chang�. n.y.p. 1 3. GUSTAVSEN. BJam. Hikon FINNE and Bo Oscarsson: Creating Colll1t!Ctedness. � rol� ofsocial research in innovation policy. 200 1 . ·