How does learning facilitate development? Free

In this issue, Williamsson & Askenäs (2024) examined whether and how learning takes place in software development. IT software development is a complex process that requires a constant renewal of knowledge, but also collaboration with many internal and external stakeholders. As new approaches and practices are constantly emerging, learning is a necessity to adapt to new requirements. However, the question arises as to how IT organizations and operations teams preserve knowledge for future use. Another question is who is responsible for such processes. Knowledge management is important in these circumstances because it makes the organization’s knowledge available to individuals and teams who need it, so that they do not have to rely on the knowledge of people who may no longer be available given the high turnover in the IT sector.

The next important question is how IT teams learn. This process depends on the accepted software development model, which refers to the accepted methodology or framework used to develop new software. Possible models include DevOps, the spiral model, the V-model, the waterfall model and the agile model. Individuals in software development teams learn during the work by reflecting on the process (reflection in action), but also after the work is either fully or partially completed (reflection on action) (Schön, 1983). This is related to situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 2005), where individuals learn how something is developed or performed in a particular situation. It is often assumed that collective reflection leads to a harmonization of experiences and knowledge. However, sometimes individuals may have conflicting views (Engeström & Sannino, 2010), leading to different learning outcomes, but also to new approaches to situations.

Expansive learning is also possible under such circumstances, so that those involved acquire new knowledge and skills that go beyond their current work and existing knowledge. In this way, individuals can find new ways of doing things or introduce new activities that they find useful based on a different way of thinking (Engeström & Sannino, 2010). In expansive learning, existing knowledge is challenged and new perspectives are explored, often through experimentation and intense reflection. Sometimes the boundaries of organizations or disciplines are crossed. In this way, new solutions are found based on new knowledge and understanding, which helps to achieve the goals of sustainability and viability.

It is also important to note that formally expressed or explicit knowledge is usually stored and easily transmitted. The challenge, however, could be the tacit knowledge that is difficult to express and transfer and remains in the hands and minds of practitioners. When circumstances change rapidly, as is the case in the IT sector and software development, tacit knowledge is accumulated almost daily. Therefore, it is important to find ways to express and share this knowledge so that others can learn and implement it to ensure greater efficiency and effectiveness in their work. This knowledge is also gained through communication with external stakeholders, especially customers. Open discussions, shared reflection on experiences and constant dialog could be helpful here. However, there is another challenge, and that is – time. The development and introduction of new software should take place faster and faster. Therefore, many practitioners are happy to deliver a project solution and move on to the next task, so that their results remain invisible or at best fragmented.

Williamsson & Askenäs (2024) surveyed practitioners from large, medium and small organizations in Sweden to investigate the learning process during software development, especially from the perspective of organizational learning. However, the results were somewhat disappointing, although they were not entirely unexpected. It turned out that respondents rarely reflected on their experiences of working according to a software development model, that models were adapted and developed ad hoc and that lessons learned were not documented and shared. Information sharing and learning occurred as needed, mostly within the team and with clients, and was based on the experience of trying out new workflows. They used software development models to structure their work.

However, due to the hectic nature of everyday working life and the time-consuming and not very beneficial process of familiarizing oneself with new documentation procedures, many fall back on existing models when no changes in models are required. However, practitioners often adapted existing models and developed new ones, usually by examining existing models and combining their parts to create a new model. Google searches were very common in this regard, while collaboration with academia was rather sparse, mostly due to cost and lack of expected benefits. Reflection on action was also mostly intuitive and not done in retrospect. In line with the ad hoc approach, new knowledge was not stored for future use. In this way, tacit knowledge remains in the minds of individuals and cannot be used effectively by others. This means that organizational learning was also sparse or nonexistent and did not result in best practices that were accessible to all. Therefore, the authors called this learning “episodic organizational learning.” Lack of time and high workload appear to be the main causes of this finding. Also, the pace of change and the diversity of software development models do not seem to encourage broader knowledge sharing and collective reflection, while individual reflection and improvisation suffice. Despite these findings, however, practitioners felt that they generally carried out their projects satisfactorily.

Modern municipalities face many challenges when trying to reconcile the needs of different interest groups. Therefore, their stakeholder orientation is key to their effective and efficient work and to the satisfaction of the citizens they serve. Stakeholder orientation is also a great source of new information and knowledge on how to balance stakeholders’ interests and effectively meet their needs. Communication with citizens is especially important to learn about their needs and challenges and find ways to meet them. However, knowledge development also depends on effective knowledge transfer and learning within the organization. Although collaboration often offers many opportunities, there are also challenges, particularly in the creation and sharing of knowledge. For this reason, Sunnemark et al. (2024) investigated the barriers and facilitators to knowledge transfer and learning processes in a collaborative project in a municipal organization in Sweden as a basis for their organizational learning and development. These processes were viewed through the prism of organizational learning as the process of creating, retaining and transferring knowledge, especially when knowledge is created through learning from experience (Argote, 2011). Knowledge transfer is key to organizational learning, as it enables the dissemination of ideas, information and best practices within the organization.

Practitioners should pay attention to various factors that can facilitate or hinder knowledge sharing and transfer (Sunnemark et al., 2024).

• (1)

  Effective communication

The learning process is often challenging and full of ambiguous situations. Therefore, it is important that those involved in the learning process communicate continuously to achieve a higher degree of clarity about the content of the newly acquired knowledge, but also about its potential benefits. If there are no functioning communication channels, the transfer of knowledge cannot be effective despite the individual’s best efforts. Sunnemark et al. (2024) found that effective communication is not possible if the project structure is not clear. If the structure is not clear, it is not clear who reports to whom, and cross-departmental communication is hindered. In this case, project updates are also irregular and badly targeted.

• (2)

  Clarity of roles

It should be clear who takes on which role in each task and especially in the project so that it is successful and the new knowledge is implemented. Effective communication and established communication channels help in this regard. Sunnemark et al. (2024) found that an unclear project structure also leads to confusion about project roles, which in turn has a negative impact on communication. As expected, this leads to difficulties in the learning process and the transfer of knowledge. Roles can appear ambiguous due to power structures within an organization, which can also have a negative impact on learning and knowledge sharing if some members feel excluded, ignored or marginalized.

• (3)

  Common goals

Goals should be defined at every level, not just at the project level, and it should be clear how these goals are to be achieved. This is related to the problems of defining a project or the organizational structure.

• (4)

  Time pressure

With strict deadlines, project participants do not have enough time to reflect on their findings and share those findings with others, let alone engage in reflective dialogue. If there is enough time, a productive dialogue could emerge and lead to greater insight. If not, this is a major obstacle to learning and knowledge sharing. Project participants often feel that their workload is too heavy, especially if they are also working on another project, and suffer from project fatigue, which significantly hinders learning, reflection and knowledge sharing. A heavy workload can also contribute to a pessimistic outlook.

• (5)

  Group learning

This element is related to the previous one and builds on the fact that learning is a social process and should be shared to be effective. Groups are usually the best place to develop a learning process as they allow for knowledge, reflective dialogue and shared meaning making. Based on the group’s findings, the learning process can change its course, new roles can be defined and new implementation options can be discovered in addition to those originally defined. The learning process can be divided into several groups, but they should all communicate with each other and share insights.

• (6)

  Building trust

All elements are interlinked and build on each other. Therefore, it is important to know that without building trust, members of an organization and a project cannot effectively communicate, develop and share insights and knowledge. Conflict is inevitable in any social interaction. However, when trust has been built, even conflicts are resolved more effectively and can even be a source of new learning and knowledge. If and when an appropriate level of trust is established, group members feel safe to share ideas and opinions, even if this leads to conflict.

• (7)

  Absorptive capacity

Project work often brings new knowledge that should be absorbed. This is often difficult and requires the support of the group and good relationships. Sometimes new training is required to improve understanding of new knowledge. All the elements mentioned above help in this regard.

The rapid exploitation of resources and the generation of enormous amounts of waste, as well as other activities that damage the planet, require a shift toward greater sustainability, but also towards the renewal and regeneration of the world in which we live. However, the complexity and multilayered nature of systems leads to complex interactions where everything seems to affect everything else and change is often irreversible. However, returning systems to their original form may not even be desirable, as this form may also be flawed for various reasons. In fact, the flaws in the existing systems triggered the change in the first place, so all other systems are affected. This means that the dance of change with complex social systems, which have huge impacts on natural systems, should be carefully planned, designed and executed by implementing the systems perspective or, in other words, the learning organization discipline of systems thinking and stakeholder orientation, which encourages the collaboration of all or many parties involved in the change or development.

In this way, the effects of social change could be taken into account and adverse consequences reduced to an acceptable level. For example, when developing a material, attention should be paid to whether and how it can be recycled to minimize the amount of waste. Until recently, so-called progress was achieved by designing something and not worrying about what happens to it later, for example when the product is used up and consumers no longer find it useful and want to throw it away. However, by applying the systems perspective and stakeholder orientation, all stakeholders learn about each other’s needs and aspirations and look for ways to bring them together or compromise. This process is based on explorative and generative learning and takes place in numerous learning cycles, but also in transformational leadership, all of which can be found within the learning organization framework. But this also means renouncing the desire for control and dancing with the change of all system components and its constituents.

Lilja (2024) explored regenerative, transformative change and proposed the use of appreciative inquiry as a method for exploring, discovering and appreciating all that gives “life” to organizations when they are most dynamic, effective, successful and healthy in relation to the entire system of stakeholders (Ludema & Fry, 2008, p. 280). It involves inquiry and anticipatory learning that stimulates the creation of new knowledge and creative energy through collaboration with others. It is based on the continuous asking of questions and consolidation among stakeholders. Practitioners can implement it using the 5D framework. The process begins with defining the situation, followed by discovery as a collective exploration of what gives life to the situation and why this is the case now and in the past. This phase involves dreaming or imagining what could be by identifying the best outcome of all elements. Then the members set about designing the things they imagined in the dreaming phase. Destiny follows by implementing the designed solutions and change.

Digitalization is a very comprehensive and strenuous process. However, it is often stated that the challenges lie more in the redesign of relationships between organizational measures than in the introduction of new technologies. The integration of work processes seems to be the biggest challenge. Therefore, it is interesting to examine the internal facilitators of sustainable change when introducing new technologies. This was investigated by Brandenberger et al. (2024) in this issue. Specifically, they examined the adoption of well-being or welfare technologies, also referred to as digital assistive technologies, such as safety alarms, global positioning system trackers, camera monitoring, fall sensors and electronic medication dispensers, which could improve the daily lives of older people and those in need of care. They have also explored the role of technology coordinators to facilitate the use of these technologies by reorganizing workflows while maintaining organizational stability and sustainability. This leads to organizational learning and sustainable change if the process is successful.

It is interesting to note that the people who are most involved in the procedures and processes could be the greatest help. In nursing organizations, this could be nurses in middle management positions who have both operational experience and a good understanding of the system so that they know where problems might occur and how to solve them. By understanding the organizational context, nurses can negotiate with stakeholders to achieve outcomes that are best for both other staff and clients or service users. Brandenberger et al. (2024) found that facilitators or technology coordinators are very useful as they can identify missing skills, errors in processes or procedures, gaps in learning or understanding, renegotiate the use of some technologies in practice, change the way they are used, find out how different technologies can be integrated, share their insights and understanding with others, etc. In some cases, the meaning of the technology was renegotiated, especially when the perception of the technology was a trial-and-error process due to different perspectives.

They were also responsible for formalizing routines and responsibilities. As new tasks emerged, new roles had to be defined as responsibilities were not clear. For this reason, constant negotiations were necessary. Sometimes employees consciously or unconsciously fall back into old work habits, so they need to be warned against this practice and convinced to change their habits. Often a redistribution of responsibilities is necessary, which requires further negotiation. In this process, the exchange of information is essential. This process could also identify other uses for certain technologies and ideas for other uses. However, the bottom line is that a common sense should be found so that all stakeholders work together and use the technology in the best and most effective way. Dialog and shared sense-making are the best suggested practices in the perspective integration process.

Crisis situations are often characterized by risk, uncertainty and ambiguity. A high degree of new learning is usually required to successfully overcome them. However, this learning is often unstructured and triggered by new circumstances rather than planned events, often constrained by limited resources or capabilities. The declared pandemic was one such event where new challenges emerged, and at the same time there was a need to keep the health-care system stable and provide for other needs. For this reason, distributed management was required, incorporating the perspectives of different stakeholders. In such cases, Rosenbäck & Svensson (2024) suggest the use of a framework that proposes five management tasks during a crisis situation: sense-making, decision-making, meaning-making, crisis management and learning. However, after the crisis has ended, further sense-making and learning are needed to determine what has been learned and what benefits it has for future work, so that some work practices are permanently changed.

In a crisis, it is particularly important to gather information about the crisis situation and to recognize threats and opportunities. Sometimes managers try to recognize the contours of a crisis before it breaks out, but this can be difficult due to the lack of valuable information. Despite the information and insights gained, decision-making in a crisis situation is difficult as a plan must be created and resources allocated according to priorities. However, the situation can still be ambiguous and have some volatility, so managers should usually expect trade-offs. In such cases, there may be little or no time for reflection. However, it is also an intensive learning phase, usually based on trial and error. This is also a process in which others should be involved to ensure and support collective action.

By studying and comparing the practice of two hospitals in Sweden, Rosenbäck & Svensson (2024) found that it was difficult for managers to grasp the new situation during the declared pandemic. They gathered information from their international colleagues and their own hospitals to assess capacity needs and select treatment methods. The knowledge gained was then passed on to the higher management levels. Capacity pressures were initially low, but staff concerns were high, so support was needed. Capacity requirements never exceeded forecasts, and the external intensive care unit was never used. As a result, the decisions made were often adapted to the circumstances and involved meetings with different people. It was a continuous learning process and this knowledge was used to better manage subsequent peaks. Those who knew the most about the situation were empowered to act and make decisions. It was also important to maintain and nurture a sense of purpose among employees. We could say that their continuous learning helped to build resilience.

Learning, especially organizational learning, is a very context-dependent process. Therefore, it is worth exploring it in different settings. Jaakkola et al. (2024) decided to do this in the hospital setting. This is a very knowledge-intensive environment that also offers numerous learning opportunities, such as formally organized training programs. Furthermore, this environment is highly regulated and does not allow for much improvisation. However, the authors wanted to investigate whether and to what extent employees engage in learning by doing or incidental learning that is not related to formal training programs but takes place in everyday situations. Despite the regulations, many new situations arise that provide room for incidental learning that can lead to great insights that can be used for organizational learning on a broad or organizational level. In this way, this type of learning can be a great driver for organizational learning and change if it is allowed and supported. The demands of the organization in terms of specific knowledge and skills thus lead to increased individual learning. However, individual learning-by-doing and incidental learning can drive further learning and change within the team and the organization, closing the loop of individual and organizational development. It is particularly important for practitioners to identify starting points and stimulate them further to promote and stimulate positive organizational change.

It is important to give those closest to the interventions the opportunity to learn on the job, e.g. nurses, and give them time and space to reflect on their work experiences with others, and give them the opportunity to share their learning experiences and insights across the organization so that others can learn from them and implement some practices organization-wide. As Jaakkola et al. (2024) noted, such learning is often problem-oriented and relates to some challenges that lead to a proposed solution, which is then discussed with the group and implemented if agreed. Much of the individual learning was also interest-based and happened due to the sheer interest and motivation of the individual because they thought something was important and could bring benefits on a larger scale. Sometimes individuals also wanted to experiment out of sheer curiosity. In these situations, it is very helpful to create a climate that encourages learning and reflection, but also fosters a sense of belonging so that employees feel that their efforts are valued. It is also important that all procedures and communication channels that hinder such learning and reflection are abolished or changed. As always, support from managers is crucial, especially when it comes to relinquishing control and encouraging employees to try new things rather than constantly asking if they are allowed to. During the process, it is good to provide employees with adequate resources and give them enough time.

It is clear that the role of managers and leaders is crucial in all organizational processes and learning in the workplace. The literature review by Hillberg Jarl (2024) in this issue helps practitioners find ways to best support employee and team learning in the workplace. Working and learning in the workplace are almost inextricably linked. When employees work, they gain experience and learn from it. But they also acquire values and develop certain emotions that can change their behavior and personal attitudes. Employees acquire values and emotions through interaction with other employees and with managers or leaders. Social interaction can also lead to new learning impulses, especially when it is supported by shared sense-making and critical thinking. Working in teams is also highly conducive to learning, which is researched in the learning organization community as team learning. Employees working in groups or teams receive feedback from others, share insights, engage in dialogue and critical reflection, experiment and learn from failures, leading to new insights that can significantly change the future course of their work.

Based on the literature review by Hillberg Jarl (2024), the following suggestions can be made for practitioners working as managers and leaders:

• show confidence in employees and their ability to learn, as this would lead to a higher level of learning;

• show humility and approach others with empathy so that employees feel safe to work and learn;

• be a role model and show that you too are learning on the job, learn from mistakes and value the joint sense-making because employees will emulate you;

• being a role model also means behaving ethically, which employees will also emulate;

• a laissez-faire management style is good for professionals who can work independently, but is not so good for employees who need more guidance, as it would lead to less learning due to the lack of role models and opportunities to emulate;

• support employees and radiate positive energy and an optimistic attitude, as this also promotes learning, especially learning by doing and learning from mistakes;

• be present and avoid teleworking as employees need to know that you are there for them and can offer support and guidance;

• coach teams and create a safe space as this contributes to better team learning;

• if possible, be a charismatic leader as this makes employees feel like they are part of something big that has meaning and encourages learning, reflexivity and creativity; and

• openly discuss goals, strategies, decision-making processes, stakeholder relationships and other important issues. This would make employees feel important and encourage their participation and learning.

This work is a part of the project “The influence of the internal and external environment on the development of management” supported by the University of Rijeka, Croatia.