Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống
1
/ 17 trang
THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU
Thông tin cơ bản
Định dạng
Số trang
17
Dung lượng
171,03 KB
Nội dung
Learning Networks
as aMeansforWorkOrganizationDevelopment
Recent Finnish Experiences
Tuomo Alasoini
Finnish Workplace Development Programme
Ministry of Labour
tuomo.alasoini@mol.fi
Paper prepared for the Nordic R&D Conference on University and Society Cooperation,
Ronneby, 14-16 May 2003
1
Introduction
Finland is now considered one of the most competitive industrial nations in international
comparison. Finland’s performance in innovation also enjoys a high reputation. According to
the EU Innovation Scoreboard 2002, Sweden and Finland are the two innovation leaders
among the EU Member States (www.trendchart.cordis.lu/Scoreboard2002/index.html). By a
closer look, however, Finland’s good performance is mainly based on achievements in the
area of technological development and innovation. This is one of the main conclusions of the
Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland (2003) in its newest triennial review. The
review examines the main challenges facing research and innovation funding and it contains a
list of policy recommendations for the future. It states, “Technological development and
technological innovations are generally considered the strongest area of Finnish innovation.
/…/ Well-deserved attention has begun to be paid to the relative weakness of social
innovation in the entity of innovation. Its development alongside technology is a major
challenge for society and for the economy. As yet Finland has no clear development strategy
for social innovation. The challenge concerns both the organizations responsible for social
development, the development of working life, and the safeguarding of individual
development and opportunities by means of research-based innovations.”
From the point of view of workorganizationdevelopment policy the unbalanced development
of technological and social innovation can be seen as follows:
(1) The relatively favourable overall growth of productivity in Finnish economy in recent
years conceals the fact that there are remarkable sectoral differences in productivity
development. The rapid productivity growth in sectors which produce information and
communications technologies (ICT), such as the electrical and electronics industry, is
contrasted with slackened growth in most other industries. Finnish companies’ overall record
in turning the new technological opportunities permitted by advanced ICT into gains in
productivity has been relatively poor. This indicates that many companies have not managed
to implement sufficient improvements in their work and human resource management (HRM)
practices to achieve synergistic effects of combined use of ICT and new forms of work
organization.
(2) There is no clear evidence indicating of a positive association between the extent of the
use of ICT and the improvement of the quality of working life (QWL) at company or
workplace level in Finland. The new technological opportunities have been so far
insufficiently utilized asameans to deliberately improve work processes, workorganization
and work designs from the QWL point of view.
Finland is not alone among the industrial nations with these problems. Though industry- and
plant-level survey data from various sources indicate that superior productivity gains usually
are a combined effect of new technologies and supplementary management and work
organization innovations (e.g. Antila and Ylöstalo 1999; Breshanan et al. 2002; Gjerding
1999; Kumar 2000; Lewis et al. 2002), workorganizationdevelopmentas such has so far
played only a minor role in public-policy decision-making, especially when compared to the
development of new product and production technologies. For instance, Brödner and Latniak
(2002) found out that only seven of the 15 EU Member States had ongoing public-supported
work organizationdevelopment programmes in 2002.
2
This paper outlines a fresh approach to workorganizationdevelopment which utilizes
learning networksasameansfor disseminating and generating knowledge of new practices,
and examines opportunities for this approach in Finland by looking at university-industry
cooperation. University-industry cooperation in Finland is analysed with the help of
experiences of the Finnish Workplace Development Programme (1996-2003). The last part of
the paper examines learningnetworksasa model for interaction and cooperation at four
different levels.
Towards a New Approach in WorkOrganizationDevelopment
Bases for Innovation-Promoting WorkOrganizationDevelopment
Typical goals of the ‘first-generation’ of workorganizationdevelopment programmes dating
from the 1960s to the 1980s included improvements in job contents, working conditions,
work environments, employees’ opportunities for participation and labour-management
relations (Den Hertog and Schröder 1989). The two main weaknesses with these ‘first-
generation’ programmes were that the objects of development were often perceived as
abstract and unattached to strategic business goals by management and that the programmes
lacked effective means to communicate and disseminate project outcomes to other companies.
Their poor record in these two respects can be contrasted with the simultaneous success of the
Japanese quality movement in improving performance of Japanese companies (Cole 1993).
Maintaining and strengthening the social legitimacy of workorganizationdevelopment policy
in today’s globalizing and increasingly networked economy calls for an approach, which
explicitly focuses on the promotion of productivity-boosting organizational innovations.
Work organizationdevelopment designed specifically to promote innovations differ by its
strategic goal-setting from its predecessors, which were designed specifically to promote
QWL and employee participation, but it can be linked to their value basis in two ways:
(1) Innovations provide a way to boost productivity and thus to improve the competitiveness
of companies and economic growth in general. Countries, regions and companies which are
unable to compete in the field of innovations are in danger of losing their strategic room for
manoeuvre in global competition. They will then be forced increasingly to seek their
competitive advantages in lowering the costs of traditional production factors such as labour.
On the corporate level, this has the long-term effect of undermining the job security of the
employees, making atypical employment more widespread and reducing companies’ interest
in developing the competence and skills of their employees. For society asa whole, the threat
lies in a weaker financial base for social expenditure and a growing economic and social gulf
between different population groups. The consequences could easily be a self-perpetuating
vicious circle which would be hard to break. Maintaining good QWL calls fora sound growth
of productivity which is based on organizational innovations.
(2) Promotion of innovation activity within companies makes them more interested in
improving employees’ opportunities to contribute to development work. In this respect, the
Japanese quality movement provides both a good and a bad example. It is good in the sense
that it became in effect a mass movement for quality improvement in Japanese companies. It
is, however, a bad example in the sense that it did not, in fact, break down the hierarchical
decision-making structures within companies and lead to industrial democracy, giving rise
instead to adevelopmentorganization (e.g. quality circles) which existed parallel to the
3
production organization (Lillrank 1995). By contrast, in the Nordic countries, where the
responsibility for planning and development activities has recently been delegated to
employees and teams within the production organization, workorganizationdevelopment
aimed at boosting innovation has much better chances of further speeding up this line of
development.
The Role of External Expert Knowledge in WorkOrganizationDevelopment
Attempts to develop workorganization can take many forms. Figure 1 presents these different
means in a two-dimensional diagram. The x-axis illustrates the intensity of the role of external
expertise in the change process, while the y-axis illustrates the relationship between expertise
and practical knowledge (i.e. knowledge that management and employees possess) in
achieving change. Typical traditional methods of workorganizationdevelopment include the
ready-made expert solutions at one end of the x-axis (legislation, agreements between the
labour market organizations, norms, standards and blueprinted consultancy ‘change
packages’) and the dissemination of information at the other end (research reports, method
guidebooks, databases, etc.). What these two methods have in common is that the outside
expertise and in-house practical knowledge never meet during the actual process of change.
Figure 1. Different roles of external expertise in workorganization development.
Dissemination
of information
Training
programmes
Advisory
services
Ready-made
expert
solutions
Company-
specific
expert
solutions
Expertise
directly guides
process of change
Expertise
indirectly guides
p
rocess of change
Expertise and
practical knowledge
in interaction
Expertise and
practical knowledge
unconnected
Participatory
development
The potential for influencing change processes using these methods alone has dwindled in
recent years. Meanwhile, the importance of the methods in the upper right-hand corner of
figure 1 has correspondingly grown. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the pace of change
in the companies’ operating environment has accelerated and the issue of workorganization is
increasingly becoming a reflexive topic, which is subject to continuous discussion and
redefinition. If external expertise is really to have any impact under these circumstances, it
must have a strong enough role in the actual process of change itself. This is the justification
for its position on the right-hand side of the figure. At the same time, companies’
4
development challenges have become more complex asa result of globalized competition,
networked economy and the rapid advances in ICT. Their main focus of attention is no more
on renewal of individual business processes, but, increasingly, on continuous development of
the entire product and business concept (Virkkunen 2002). This has also reduced the potential
for solitary actors to find solutions to emerging problems, let alone to define the problems
themselves properly. In order to make proper definitions or to find successful solutions, it is
increasingly important that there is interaction between different types of knowledge. This, in
turn, justifies the position at the top of the figure.
The methods placed at the top right of the figure are company-specific expert solutions and
participatory development. These two methods also describe the typical role of expertise in
work organizationdevelopment programmes. The division between these two methods
broadly corresponds with the division into a design-oriented and a process-oriented approach
(Naschold 1993). Design orientation applies here to cases where external expertise is mainly
used to explore the possible future states and features of the organization on the basis of
theories or models of ‘next-generation’ organizations or other good-practice design criteria
and diagnosis of the current state of affairs in the organization, whereas in process-oriented
approach external expertise is used to assist the organization to find proper ways to implement
participatory processes of change on the basis of theories or models of change and
intervention. In innovation-promoting workorganization development, this division should be
bridged. Seeing workorganizationasa reflexive topic lays increased stress on process-
oriented approaches. Increased reflexivity does not mean, however, that the company’s room
for manoeuvre is no more bound by its current state of affairs and its own historical and other
contextual factors, i.e. also expertise in design issues is still highly important.
The methods placed at the top right of the figure also create better opportunities than the other
methods for mutual, interactive learningfor both experts and practioners. Involvement of
experts in actual processes of change and their interaction with practioners promotes their
opportunities for reflective observation and abstract conceptualization of the change
processes, resulting into new models, methods and tools fordevelopment work. From the
point of view of companies, dialogue with experts helps them, in addition to solve practical
problems, improve their
capacity to solve future problems.
From Best Practices to LearningNetworks
In traditional approaches of workorganizationdevelopment programmes, the aim is first to
identify ‘best practices’ through experimentation within a group of companies, and then to
transplant these to other companies. The problems of these approaches have been dealt with
by a number of writers (e.g. Fricke 1994; Gustavsen et al. 2001; Lillrank 1995; Wareham and
Gerrits 1999). For instance, the causal mechanisms through which the adoption of different
practices lead to improvements in company performance are complex and context-bound, and
the acquisition of these practices is not a case of a mechanical transfer of information; it is
always a creative learning process in the company in question.
One possible solution to the problem of accumulation of knowledge would be to abandon the
idea of ready-made best practices and that of disseminating these practices afterwards.
According to the new approach to workorganization development, enough companies should
be included in programmes and projects from the very start and companies should be
networked together and also with expert organizations. A large enough number of companies
5
and expert organizations might be termed
critical mass. Setting up solid channels for the
exchange of experiences and actual development cooperation within this critical mass can
facilitate the creation of
learning networks.
The term ‘learning network’ refers here to a cooperation forum between companies and expert
organizations based on equal participation and confidential exchange of information and
experiences which is intended to help companies define their development needs and find
solutions to their problems. The expert organizations involved in such networks are typically
research and educational institutions, consultancy companies and development agencies.
These networks may take many forms and may also include other participants, such as
customers, labour market organizations, intermediate-level organizations, etc. They may be
open or closed. They may have a reasonably permanent structure or a constantly changing
one. They may have both permanent members and loosely connected contributors. In many
countries, learningnetworks have been actively promoted in recent years through various
development programmes and projects (e.g. Alasoini 2001; Bessant and Tsekouras 2001;
Gustavsen et al. 2001; Tell 2001) with the aim (1) to improve the potential for individual
companies to carry out projects successfully (if critical mass has been achieved within
projects and programmes, it improves the chances of successful development and lasting
results); (2) to improve individual companies’ chances of receiving inspiration, ideas and
encouragement to develop (the more critical mass projects and programmes have, the better
the chances of companies using comparisons to understand their own situation better and thus
to support their own development); and (3) to boost the search for new, innovative solutions
(the more interaction there is between different points of view within projects and
programmes, the better the chances will be of finding fresh outlooks).
Also in workorganizationdevelopment according to this approach it is possible to talk of
good or best practices. The notion in this case, however, does not refer to ready-made,
transferable solutions; it refers to practices as generative ideas, which serve as sources of
inspiration for companies.
Universities as Partners of Companies
Different types of network can be effective in different situations. In cases of learning
involving the search for solutions to problems which are already fairly well defined, it is
useful if the network participants and their knowledge base are similar to each other. With the
help of
adaptive learning of this kind it is possible for the participants to find solutions
without needing to question norms and basic assumptions guiding their activity. In cases
where the focus is on defining the actual problems, differences in knowledge between the
participants can be a resource in itself. This calls the participants for the kind of
generative
learning which
does enforce them to critically assess their own norms and basic assumptions.
Since both types of learning are often needed, the best situation could be ‘just the right
difference’ between the network participants (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Schienstock and
Hämäläinen 2001; Tell 2001). This helps enrich the knowledge base of the network but still
leaves the participants able to understand each other’s fundamental issues, targets, language
and value judgements.
Figure 2 takes a closer look at this issue, from the point of view of adaptive and generative
learning separately. The underlying assumption here is that the opportunities forlearning by
the different network participants are a function of the difference in their knowledge base.
6
This has an effect on their learning opportunities through two components: the ease of
information exchange and the novelty of information exchanged. The ease of information
exchange decreases with the increase of difference in the knowledge base of the network
participants. The novelty of information exchanged, instead, increases with the growth of
difference in the knowledge base of the participants. The two inverse U-shaped curves in
figure 2 depict the joint effect of these two components. In adaptive learning the optimum
point of difference is probably to the left from the optimum point in generative learning.
Figure 2. Opportunities forlearning and the difference in the knowledge base of the network
participants.
Adaptive
learning
Generative
learning
Difference in knowledge base
Opportunities
for learning
Innovations often call for posing entirely new questions or redefining old ones, i.e. generative
learning. This means that innovation-promoting workorganizationdevelopment should focus
on creating and supporting learningnetworks with actors with relatively wide differences in
their knowledge base. Innovation-promoting workorganization development, therefore, is an
area in which researchers are supposed to have an advantage over consultants asdevelopment
partners of companies, owing to their basically critical scientific approach towards the
‘reality’.
It is an open question, however, whether scientific communities are ready and willing to
expand their role in an area in which they are forced in a constant search fora satisfying
balance between their own scientific norms and standards and the expectations of different
groups of practioners. Companies and universities constitute two different communities of
practice with two different logics of operation. Even in the Nordic countries with their high
reputation for well-functioning ‘national innovation systems’ and their long tradition of work
organization development programmes, university-industry cooperation in issues related to
the workorganization is much of an unexplored area for many companies, let alone
universities (Gustavsen et al. 2001; Nieminen and Kaukonen 2001; Svensson et al. (Ed.)
2002; Tell 2001).
7
University-Industry Cooperation in Finnish WorkOrganization
Development – the Case of FINWDP Network Projects
The Finnish Workplace Development Programme (FINWDP) is the first of its kind in Finland
in terms of its conceptual foundation and scale, i.e. it is a national initiative in which the focus
is on workorganization development. FINWDP was launched at the beginning of 1996 as
part of the programme of Prime Minister Lipponen’s first administration, and will continue
until the end of 2003 under the programme of the second Lipponen Government. The aim of
the programme is to improve productivity and QWL by promoting new work and HRM
practices in Finnish workplaces. FINWDP is funded by the Finnish Government. The total
budget of the programme from 1996 to 1999 was EUR 16 million, and EUR 28 million for the
second programme phase from 2000 to 2003.
The programme can provide expert support to workplaces. Expert support is used mainly for
funding the use of researchers or consultants in the projects. 1,300 workplaces and 120,000
employees in 550 development projects have so far taken part in the programme. The main
goals of the projects include the development of work processes, establishment of teams and
groups, and improvements in leadership, personnel management, external networking and the
functioning of workplace communities.
About a third of the programme budget is earmarked fornetworks projects of a special kind.
This funding is intended for research and experimentation to support the creation and testing
of organizational innovations that have a potential for job creation. The projects must involve
a sufficient number of companies in close and open cooperation based on mutual trust.
Cooperation between companies can be based on vertical (production) or horizontal
(development) networks. Vertical networks can be further divided into principal- and
supplier-driven networks, and horizontal networks into topic-, region- and sector-based
networks. Most network projects are jointly funded by FINWDP and other R&D funding
sources such as the Technology Development Agency Tekes. The following takes a look at
network projects with regard to their potential to act aslearning networks.
Network Projects asLearningNetworks
So far FINWDP has supported 33 network projects, a half of which have been completed. 20
of the projects are horizontal networks, and most of them (N=17) are primarily topic-based.
Where vertical networks are concerned, there are more supplier-driven networks (N=7) than
principal-driven ones (N=5). The first type is typically a case of several small or medium-
sized supplier companies led by one or two ‘core’ companies in trying to create system
supplier capacity for their mutual production network through intensifying their cooperation.
There is one network project, which does not clearly belong to either of the two above groups.
This project aims to create technological and organizational infrastructure for networking
between a group of workplaces. There is only one project in which the primary justification is
that it is regionally based, but about ten projects have this as their secondary justification for
networking.
Metal and engineering industry companies have participated more actively than anyone else
in network projects. One third of the projects consist only of such companies, and they are
also involved in many other mixed projects. The other most active participants include the
mechanical wood-processing industry and the electronics industry. The total number of
8
participating companies is from 250 to 300, depending on the precise definition of
‘participation’. Most of them are SMEs.
Table 1 shows how extensively different kind of actors take part in the network projects. In 15
projects, the development coalition comprises only a group of companies and an individual
expert organization. The other extreme is demonstrated by two projects in which one can find
as many as six different types of actors involved. Of all expert organizations, research
institutes (N=15), technical universities and faculties (N=14) and consultancy firms (N=11)
are the most active participants in the projects. The distribution of expert organizations in
Table 1 seems to correspond to the situation in Finland on the whole. Nieminen and
Kaukonen (2001) have conducted a survey of how important companies consider innovation-
related cooperation with different partners. Based on their material (374 companies in
manufacturing and knowledge-intensive business services), the companies considered
cooperation with their own client companies, equipment suppliers, material suppliers and
subcontractors fairly or very significant clearly more often than with any other partners. 31%
of the companies also considered cooperation with research institutes such as the Technical
Research Centre of Finland (VTT) to be important. Cooperation with private consultancy and
development agencies (28%) and technical universities and faculties (23%) was considered
more important than cooperation with polytechnics and other educational institutes (21%).
Meanwhile, the figure for universities was only 12% and for schools of business
administration only 3%.
Table 1. Development coalitions and different types of participants involved in FINWDP
network projects.
Number of different types of participants
2345 6 TOTAL
Companies 15772 2 33
Research institutes 4461 15
Technical universities and faculties 6232 1 14
Consultancy firms 2341 1 11
Educational institutes 2 2 1 1 6
Universities 2 2 1 5
Development agencies 1 2 1 1 5
Public-sector workplaces 1 1 1 2 5
Polytechnics 1 1 2
Residents 2 2
Schools of business administration 1 1
Rehabilitation institutes 1 1
Organizations of entrepreneurs 1 1
The number of different types of expert organizations involved, the number of companies
involved, their variation by factors such as industrial sector and size, and the project duration
are some of the most critical
structural characteristics depicting the ability of a project to
function asalearning network. In actual fact, a project’s ability to function asalearning
network depends on many other factors too, asfor instance the forms of interaction between
different participants in the course of the project, how advanced the methods are that the
project applies and how committed the various participants are to the project.
9
The following includes short descriptions of three network projects which demonstrate
aspects of learning networks. They also constitute examples of three different kinds of
networks, a horizontal (The Lohja Area Environmental Cluster), a vertical (The VAVE
Network) and an infrastructure-creating network (The TEL LAPLAND Network).
Case I – The Lohja Area Environmental Cluster
The Lohja area is an old industrial area in western Uusimaa province in southern Finland. The
Environmental Cluster comprises 18 local companies, the organization Entrepreneurs of
Lohja, the Lohja Hospital District and the City of Lohja itself. The companies involved are
among Finland’s leading corporations in the paper, wood processing, electronics and building
materials industries and in energy production. The University of Helsinki’s Länsi-Uusimaa
Institute for Continuing Education acted as coordinator in a project (1999-2002), which gave
rise to the establishment of the Cluster. Various subprojects have brought also many
consultancy firms into the Cluster.
The Environmental Cluster is intended to launch and implement projects that aim to improve
the state of the environment in the Lohja area, to create cooperation in environmental issues
between authorities, companies and local residents, and to increase and utilize environmental
know-how in the area. It is hoped that cooperation will help find solutions and operating
models that reduce environmental impacts arising from raw material acquisition, energy use
and the manufacture, transport, distribution, use, recycling and disposal of various products.
The Cluster was a consequence of a competitiveness analysis of the area, carried out by a
local partnership project in 1998. This showed that efficient handling of environmental issues
was an important factor for companies’ competitiveness and for that of the area asa whole.
The Cluster is an open learning network seeking to expand. Specific rules were set down right
at the outset, covering decision-making, the implementation of subprojects, funding,
agreements and internal and external provision of information. The companies have formed
clubs amongst themselves for the personnel in charge of environmental issues, logistics,
information and acquisitions, and for technical staff. The operations of the Cluster have been
aimed at both local residents and company personnel, and have taken the form of
environmental and company surveys, training seminars, visits, joint development projects and
various other events, such asa car-free day and a car-pool day. The companies’ joint
development projects focused on reducing the environmental impact of logistics chains, on
more effective waste recycling, on efforts to boost the user value of Lohja lake, on developing
environmental indicators and on working together on developing environmental management
systems. The Environmental Cluster is still operating even after its specific project funding
ran out in 2002, and it has made deliberate efforts to assess and develop its own capacity to
act asalearning network.
Case II – The VAVE Network
The VAVE Network is a cooperation forum for the Tampere unit of Sandvik Tamrock Oy,
which manufactures drill rigs, and eight of its suppliers. The Network seeks to develop the
competitiveness of the entire network through improved cost effectiveness, shortened
throughput times and better delivery accuracy. The acronym VAVE comes from ‘Value
[...]... regionally based learningnetworks will probably be rare in countries with small populations such as Finland Experiences from FINWDP suggest that both vertical and horizontal networks can be successful aslearningnetworks The ability of vertical networks to produce generative learning (which is the aim of learningnetworks in the final analysis) can be severely restricted if the value chain contains... specific needs The Network has a vision, strategy and organizationfor its developmentwork Cooperation within the Network is based on a framework of joint development seminars and multilateral and bilateral development projects between the companies The development projects have focused on issues such as joint acquisition of paints, cost accounting and cost awareness, demand forecasts and order procedures,... of coalition between expert organizations has in fact already been formed in some FINWDP network projects, e.g TEL LAPPI In future, forming such coalitions and studying how they work could become an increasingly important aim and function of workorganizationdevelopment programmes References Alasoini, T (2001), “Promoting network-based organizational innovations: a new approach in Finnish labour and... innovations from Japan”, Organization Studies, Vol 16, No 6, pp 971-989 Nahapiet, J and Ghoshal, S (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol 23, No 2, pp 242-266 Naschold, F (1993), Organization Development: National Programmes in the Context of International Competition”, in Naschold, F., Cole, R.E., Gustavsen, B and Van Beinum,... programmes, Enterprise Development 2000 and Value Creation 2010 (Gustavsen 2001) Much the same fundamental principle has been applied in recent workorganizationdevelopment in Sweden, where for instance the European Social Fund’s Objective 4 programme in 1995-1999 was more of aworkorganizationdevelopment programme than a training programme (unlike the case in Finland), being based on regional partnerships... subprojects aimed at improving operating methods, using a method based on cooperation and learning by doing A natural factor which fosters cooperation among companies is if they operate in the same geographical area Horizontality and – asa horizontal criterion – this geographical proximity are used as the main networking principle in the ‘module’ and development coalition’ concepts of the latest Norwegian development. .. to participate directly in planning and implementing change are more critical than ever for the preservation of individual employees’ own labour market status (Alasoini 2002) Interaction between Companies There can be many different obstacles and barriers to development cooperation between companies Those which are part of the same value chain usually find it easier to define a 13 shared target for. .. mutual cooperation The main types of interaction and cooperation occur within companies, between companies, between companies and expert organizations, and between expert organizations (figure 3) In the following, the last two types will, however, be examined as one entity Figure 3 Types of interaction and cooperation in learningnetworks Expert organizationA Company A Expert organization B Company... cooperation with other health centres and project teams at the Central Hospital The aim is to productize the new ICT-based services created by different pilot units for general use through joint planning and evaluation seminars LearningNetworks – a Model for Interaction and Cooperation Learningnetworks can be examined through the interactive relationships between the various parties involved and their... company has a special VAVE team and each supplier company has a VAVE coordinator External support for the Network’s discussions, training and development has been provided by the Industrial Systems Unit of VTT Automation and Tampere University of Technology’s Institute of Industrial Management, Institute of Machine Design and Centre for Continuing Education In addition to FINWDP and the companies involved, . deliberate efforts to assess and develop its own capacity to
act as a learning network.
Case II – The VAVE Network
The VAVE Network is a cooperation forum. following takes a look at
network projects with regard to their potential to act as learning networks.
Network Projects as Learning Networks
So far FINWDP