Paljud küll üritavad vastu võidelda ja põlistada traditsioonilise hierarhia ning “selge” probleemi-eesmärgi-tulemuse loogikaid organisatsioonides ning sotsiaalses keskkonnas üldiselt, kuid projektipõhine ja disainmõtlemisest tõukuv elamisvorm on tõsiasi. Sellistes tingimustes on aga möödapääsmatu, et koostööd tuleb teha väga erinevate teadmistega inimestega, kuid kuidas selles olukorras toime tulla? Siinviidatu võiks olla üks tekstidest, mida tudengitega ja organisatsioonides kolleegidega arutada.

Kontekstiks:

Integrating knowledge across functional experts working together on projects like R&D, software development, and large-scale engineering designs is challenging. Problems emerge throughout cross-functional collaboration (Ben-Menahem, von Krogh, Erden, & Schneider, 2016; Faraj & Xiao, 2006; Tsoukas, 2009) because knowledge is deeply rooted in domains with distinct values, interpretations, norms, and beliefs so that experts need to overcome gaps between their individual ‘thought worlds’ (Dougherty, 1992), different ways of conceptualizing focal issues (Bechky, 2003), divergent interests (Carlile, 2004), and different perspectives (Carlile, 2002; Majchrzak, More, & Faraj, 2012) to integrate expertise.

Kaks levinud “retsepti”:

We borrow Majchrzak et al.’s (2012) terminology to label two approaches to overcoming knowledge gaps as ‘traversing’ and ‘transcending’ knowledge boundaries. Traversing involves investing time and effort to identify, clarify, and negotiate deep-level differences and establish common ground (Bechky, 2003; Faraj & Xiao, 2006; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009), creating bridges between knowledge domains. Transcending involves integrating knowledge without directly addressing differences (Berends, Garud, Debackere, & Weggeman, 2011; Majchrzak et al., 2012). That can create new scaffolds or frameworks that combine expertise from multiple domains (Harvey & Mueller, 2021).

Dialoogist:

The dialogic perspective argues that interactions between experts give rise to the practices through which they work together and the way that knowledge develops (cf Pyrko, Dörfler, & Eden, 2017).

💡 Muuseas, dialoogist saad uurida ka siit.

Kuidas autorid teavad, seda mida nad esitavad:

Specifically, we present a qualitative inductive analysis of 122 problem episodes faced by teams of engineers as they designed and built the safety system for a nuclear power plant. Engineers on the project required different training and certification, and worked in teams with different priorities, deadlines, and resources, so problems occurred frequently. […] In this paper, we therefore use a problem-based approach to understand how traversing and transcending emerge from the interactions between experts and how each approach shapes ongoing attempts to integrate expertise.

Miks teadmiste loomise protsess on tähtis? Siin üks vihje:

Traversing and transcending approaches grew out of the need to overcome deep-rooted domain differences. From that perspective, differences are relatively stable and experts are likely to primarily exhibit an orientation to one approach or the other over the course of a project. Beyond deep-rooted differences, the dialogic perspective recognizes that knowledge is also embedded in practitioners’ experience of the situation in which it is created.

Algus on oluline:

While past research identified knowledge trajectories to overcome knowledge differences, we know less about the condition through which a particular trajectory emerged (Barley et al., 2018; Majchrzak et al., 2012). Our findings indicate that initially recognizing and constructing an understanding of a problem shaped initial dialogues around the problem, which set trajectories for integrating knowledge off onto one path or another. When problems were identified that were framed as mistakes, initial dialogues focused on garnering task details to explore the problem in depth.

Vihje pühendunud ametnikele, kes siiras usus ja heas tahtmises püüdlevad selguse poole kirjutades juhendeid, andes heatahtlikke soovitusi, …

Our findings provide insights into organizational conditions that increase the likelihood of a problem being viewed as a mistake versus an opportunity. For example, when tasks and roles are very clearly structured, a greater opportunity exists for coordination failure; whereas when tasks and roles are loosely structured, a greater opportunity exists for experts to craft their jobs around learning that results from exploring gaps.

Kou, C.-Y., & Harvey, S. (2021). A Dialogic Perspective on Managing Knowledge Differences: Problem-Solving while Building a Nuclear Power Plant Safety System. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211061864