Presentation used at the 2018 conference ,Piran, Slovenia. Presentation updated (two slides added on boundary objects) after private conversations with one of our keynote speakers.

1. 2018: Corporate/organizational learning
spotlight
• Monday:
• Corporate/Organizational Cloud – starting-up the network, by dr. Tom De
Schryver
• Tuesday:
• Keynote Lab High Impact Learning that Lasts: Pitfalls and Must-do’s by Filip
Dochy/Mien Segers
• Investigation into how small breakthroughs can scale up to widespread
innovation, by dr. Suzanne Verdonschot & Kirste den Hollander
• Case study: Contributions of the Establishment of a new Faculty of Medicine
for Policy Practices, by Aleksandra Kovac
• Workshop: Exploring the learning potential of evaluation research by a review
of 17 impact studies, by Suzanne Verdonschot & Kirste den Hollander

2. Corporate/organizational cloud
starting up the network
Tom De Schryver
Piran 12 November 2018

3. Agenda
• introduce myself
• introduce the new corporate/organizational learning strategy at
EAPRIL
• A new cloud
• A new strategy
• You:
• feedback
• getting involved

4. Tom De Schryver
• since November 2017: Board member of EAPRIL
• Corporate learning portfolio (back-up Patrick Belpaire)
• Back-up Finance portfolio (portfolio holder Manual Peixoto)
• 2015 : Luxembourg conference

5. Kirkpatrick ROI Success Case Strategy map
Main Attention
Training versus
organization/act
ivity system
Training,
Not a lot of
attention to the
activity system
Training priority
-Activity system
also gets
attention
Activity system
priority. Training is
embedded
Target
population
Course
participant
Individual in the
activity system
All organizational
constituents
Evaluation
moment
Feedback Feedback and
then forward
Feedforward and
then feedback
Relation to
change
- incremental transformational
5
DEDEDEDE SCHRYVER (2015,2016SCHRYVER (2015,2016SCHRYVER (2015,2016SCHRYVER (2015,2016): TRANSFORMATIONAL LABS): TRANSFORMATIONAL LABS): TRANSFORMATIONAL LABS): TRANSFORMATIONAL LABS
COMPARISON OF TRAINING EVALUATION SYSTEMS

6. Tom De Schryver
• since November 2017: Board member of EAPRIL
• Corporate learning portfolio (back-up Patrick Belpaire)
• Back-up Finance portfolio (portfolio holder Manual Peixoto)
• 2015 : Luxembourg conference
• Since June 2018: Associate professor Internal Control and Trade
compliance at the Netherlands Defense Academy (NLDA)
• 2009: PhD (RUN) “An organizational learning perspective on change”
• Forthcoming: Compliance and Integrity in International Military trade
• ?

7. Time for a
new take on corporate/organizational
learning at EAPRIL

8. Back to the future
• 2014: Cyprus
• 2015: Luxembourg: “moving corporate learning from good to great”
• 2016: Portugal
• 2017: Finland
• 2018: Slovenia
• 2019: new cloud 14 + specific themes, Estonia
• 2020: new cloud 14 + specific themes, Austria

9. The challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPlJWk8-b4E

10. Two real challenges

11. The first challenge for EAPRIL: the elephant
“Corporate” learning
“Organizational” learning

12. We are open to any kind of organization!
• Not only for profit organizations
• Two new issues
• What is it,… an organization?
• Can organizations learn?

13. What is an organization?
• A (scientific) definition problem.
• organization = “goal-directed, boundary-maintaining activity systems” (Aldrich, 1979).
• organization = “decision driven social order” (Apelt et al. 2017, Ahrne et al. 2017)
• It is a broad definition that allows to welcome any kind of organization at EAPRIL!
• knowledge intensive for-profit companies relying on innovation and disruptive technological change to
compete and to survive
• Highly performing organizations (like in health care, military operations) where learning from mistakes is more
important than accountability.
• Communities of interests, meta-organizations, branch organizations, governments that facilitate learning from
other members
• …..

14. What is organizational learning?

15. If you think that only humans can
learn then
you had a long winter sleep….
Machine learning
Expert systems

16. If you think that only
programmed entities can learn
(like machines and humans) then
I challenge you to learn to make an electric car, without any organizational support.
I suggest you read Cook & Yanow (1991).
I suggest you read the news.

17. The news is full of expectations that
organizations learn from their mistakes….
• https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/09/06/the-world-has-not-
learned-the-lessons-of-the-financial-crisis
• https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/hebben-we-dan-niets-geleerd-van-
de-kredietcrisis-situatie-vandaag-lijkt-op-die-van-2007~ba555aa3/
• https://www.demorgen.be/dmselect/hebben-we-dan-niets-geleerd-uit-de-
kredietcrisis-situatie-nu-lijkt-op-die-van-10-jaar-geleden-b1403c2f/
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/08/have-learned-lessons-
financial-crisis-dont-bank/
• …..

18. Organizational learning defined
Organizational learning =
processes of change in,
individual and shared thought and action,
which is affected by and embedded in the institutions of an
organization.
Source: Crossan et al. (1999)

19. Organizational learning defined
(Crossan et al. 1999)

20. Organizational learning at the 2018 EAPRIL
corporate learning program
Level Inputs Process Outputs
Individual Experiences
Images
Intuiting (Expert,
entrepreneurial)
Metaphors, stories (in
the head)
Group
Language
Cognitive maps
Interpreting
(Kovac, Verdonshot & den
Hollander a)
Conversation/dialogue
Share understandings
Mutual adjustments
Integrating
(Verdonshot & den
Hollander a, Kovac)
input in Interactive
systems
Organization Routines
Diagnostic systems
Institutionalizing
(HILL, Verdonshot & den
Hollander b)
Rules & procedures

21. The second challenge for EAPRIL: the blind

22. How long do you think that the blind will
continue to argue?
2017
“Herdenken dwingt ons de vraag te
stellen of we open staan voor wat waar
is. Want zijn we in staat eerst informatie
te verzamelen voordat we tot een
oordeel over de ander komen? Bekijken
we gebeurtenissen van meerdere
kanten? Verzetten we ons tegen
leugens of tegen ongelijke behandeling
op welke grond dan ook?”
Kim Putters
https://www.4en5mei.nl/media/docum
enten/toespraakopdedam(1).pdf
2018

23. How long do you think that the blind will continue
to argue?
Habermas (1990):
ideal speach conditions
• Every subject with the competence to
speak and act is allowed to take part in a
discourse.
• 2a. Everyone is allowed to question any
assertion whatever.
• 2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any
assertion whatever into the discourse.
• 2c. Everyone is allowed to express his (or
her) attitudes, desires, and needs.
• 3. No speaker may be prevented, by
internal or external coercion, from
exercising his (or her) rights as laid down
in (1) and (2).
Carlile (2004):
realist speach conditions

24. A cruel paradox:
Why is there silence among the blind?
1) Scholarly research is overly specialized
• Researchers from different disciplines do not “talk” enough to each other.
• Syntactic & semantic boundaries: it costs too much time!
• Pragmatic boundaries: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
2) Also practice and (multidisciplinary) research often remain silent
• researchers want clear questions
• practice want clear answers
3) Silence is cruel because listening of blind ought to be their core competency …..
EAPRIL needs to be the voice!

25. A cruel paradox: in the view of CAT
Research activity system Practice activity system

26. EAPRIL’s voice:
this is how we can take away the noise!
• 2014: Cyprus
• 2015: Luxembourg: “moving corporate learning from good to great”
• 2016: Portugal
• 2017: Finland
• 2018: Slovenia
• 2019: new cloud 14 + specific themes, Estonia
• 2020: new cloud 14 + specific themes, Austria

27. EAPRILS voice:
a NEW CLOUD + FOCUSSED top down strategy
Good communication
• Bottom-up strategy
• Cloud 14:
• Succes= fit (research, practice)!
• Network of brokers
• Share/ leverage successes of
practice based research
• Give a platform and make some
“noise”!
Noise in the communication/Silence
• Top-down strategy
• Multidisciplinary mini board reporting
to the EAPRIL board
• creating focus by thematic carousels at
the conference
• themes as boundary objects
• New OPEN awards presented at the
conference
• Forums: More off-conference activities

28. Themes and fora as boundary objects
Research activity system Practice activity system

29. How is cloud 14 different from existing clouds?
(A content perspective)
Individual
Learning
HRD
Team
Learning
Workplace Learning
Organizational
memory
ICT
ICT

30. Exclusion criteria.
In the organizational cloud and strategy
1. we do not focus on single level learning research (e.g. workplace
learning). There should be cross level processes at play.
2. we do not focus on organizations that have education as their
business case (like schools and higher education organizations);
they can however be part of a larger research initiative. we will only
focus on organizations where learning is not its core business, but
fundamental for its viability.

31. Inclusion criteria of cloud 14.
Recall, we welcomewe welcomewe welcomewe welcome contributions of learning in
any kind of “decision driven social order”
• knowledge intensive for-profit companies relying on innovation and
disruptive technological change to compete and to survive
• Highly performing organizations (like in health care, military operations)
where learning from mistakes is more important than accountability.
• Communities of interests, meta-organizations, branch organizations,
governments that facilitate learning from other members
• ….

32. How far are we?
• We are “hiring”
• Bottom- up strategy: cloud 14
• Cloud coordinators!
• ideas
• Top-down strategy:
• Corporate board
• Ideas
• I have some exploratory talks (for the top-down strategy):
• case based approach of Adaptive cycle of Toon Abcouwer (UvA)
• Fishbowl events with Ger Driesen (A new spring)
• With program directors of several masters (e.g. KPZ, NLDA)
But …..

33. How to get you involved?

34. In sum, contact me,
• Give feedback on my ideas to
• Broaden the scope from corporate to organizational learning
• create a platform by means of cloud 14
• Focus by means of some top down initiatives
• Talk to me during or after the conference.
• Enjoy the rest of EAPRIL 2018!

35. References
• Aldrich (1979/2008) Organizations and environments. Stanford University Press.
• Apelt, M., Besio, C., Corsi, G., von Groddeck, V., Grothe-Hammer, M., & Tacke, V. (2017).
Resurrecting organization without renouncing society: A response to Ahrne, Brunsson and
Seidl. European Management Journal, 35(1), 8-14.
• Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., & Seidl, D. (2017). On the fruitfulness of the concept of partial
organization: A rejoinder to Apelt et al. European Management Journal, 35(3), 297-299.
• Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for
managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization science, 15(5), 555-568.
• Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133-156.
• Cook, S. N., & Yanow, D. (2011). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 20(4), 362-379.
• Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From
intuition to institution. Academy of management review, 24(3), 522-537.
• Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. MIT press.