DE V E L O P M E N T A L S P A C E F O R I N N O V A T I O N
Karin Derksen, Leon de Caluwé & Robert Jan Simons, 2010.
Our research begins with the question: what developmental space do groups need while working on innovation? The starting point is a model of developmental space designed by Coenders (2008). Developmental space in this model is: a social space arising from interaction between people. Coenders states that this developmental space is conditional for the probability of success for groups
working on innovation. In our paper we develop step by step research based a new model of the developmental space. Our research has two long-term objectives. The first is to make a practically applicable model of the developmental space that supports groups, consultants and change agents in analyzing the present and desired developmental space of the group. The second and future objective is to develop a job aid to improve the developmental space of groups.
Introduction
Several authors write that, currently organizations need to change and innovate rapidly (Drucker, 2001; Harrison & Kessels, 2004; Kessels, 2001; Senge et al, 1999; Wierdsma & Swieringa, 2002). According to Kessels (2001) and Gratton (2007) innovation requires new knowledge and new combinations of experience and knowledge. Most authors also focus on the process needed for innovation: cooperation between individuals in a group setting (Gratton, 2007; Vroemen, 2009). The research in this paper concerns the group setting needed for innovation. We assume that a work environment should be stimulating and challenging in order to facilitate innovation (Arets & Heijnen, 2008; Borghans, Golsteyn & de Grip, 2007; Coenders, 2008; Cross, 2007; Hager & Halliday, 2009; Ruijters, 2007; Wenger 1998)
In this study we take a model of Coenders (2008) as the point of departure. This states that developmental space in groups is a condition for successful innovation. He describes developmental space as a social space created by the people in the group. Space is a dynamic notion and it is related to what people do and do not do (Coenders, 2008). A group creates its own developmental space by interaction with
characterized as a theory guided bricolage (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) or research-based product development. Figure 1 shows the research steps taken and the result of each step.
Figure 2: Research steps and results
We start our research with an interview with Coenders and asking questions to 7 experienced consultants and change agents. This phase confirms that the model of Coenders is too complex and not complete yet. The objective of the second phase is to redesign the model of Coenders (2008). The adjustments start as “rapid prototyping” (Visscher-Voerman, 1999), in which literature study and interviews mingle. The 6 interviewees are researchers in related research fields. In each interview a slightly new model is presented to the interviewee. They are asked for their opinion, questions and ideas on the model and for literature suggestions. At the end of this phase three observations are conducted to observe the new model in practice. This all leads to model 2.0. In Delphi round two 18 experienced
consultants and change agents participate. They answer questions for a group that has been successful in their innovation and for a group that has not been
successful. 5 Respondents are interviewed afterwards. Finally the model is compared to: hot spots of Gratton (2007), power and love of Kahane (2010) and theory U of Scharmer (2007) (see table 1). This results in model 3.0.
Development space Hot spots Power & love Theory U
Dimensions of the development space compared
Creating future Catching goal Power Co-creating Organizing Productive capacity Power Co-creating and
co-evolving Dialoguing Cooperation aimed
thinking
Love Co-initiating and co-sensing Reflecting Crossing borders Love Presencing Interacting with
environment
Crossing borders Power and love Co-sensing and co-evolving
Results compared
Bigger chance on success
in innovation Flow One step further Improved performance
Principles compared
Strive for balance First attention for the relation, later for productivity
Strive for balance by
reinforcing the weaker side Steps that follow one another during time The group creates The group creates The group creates The leader has a
facilitating and leading role Group arises naturally, or
is put together Group arises naturally, or is put together Group arises naturally, or is put together Group is put together with a leader No separate room to
experiment No separate room to experiment “Container/ Ba” (as room to experiment) “Ba” (as room to experiment) Table 1: Model of development space compared to three other “models”
Model of developmental space 3.0
The new model of development space consists of four dimensions (figure 2). These dimensions are undertaken during interaction in the group, therefore they are verbs. Groups that are reasonably well developed on these four dimensions create
an environment that increases their chance to be successful in their innovation. Besides the four dimensions there is one other factor influencing the
developmental space, interacting with the environment. This factor differs from the dimensions, because it is not directly and only undertaken during the interaction in the group. The group can and must interact with their environment. If the group does not interact with the environment it is, for instance, almost impossible to create value. This can be influenced by the group, but there is also an interaction from outside the group that can not always be influenced. Think of pressure from stakeholders, limitations from the sponsor, or conflicting political interests, etc.
Conclusions and discussion
The dimensions in the model are not new, in fact they are very well known. What does the model of developmental space 3.0 add? Two ideas: the choice for these four dimensions and the balance between these dimensions, all four need to be reasonably well developed. Bringing the dimensions into balance is not easy. People are used to thinking in contradictions and choosing between alternatives. They think it is either/or. But here we have to think in and/and. Not in what is good or bad, but having both (Kahane, 2010; Quinn, 2005); too much of one side leads to a problem on the other side. Furthermore we see future research questions. For instance, can interacting with the environment be part of the four dimensions? Other questions are about measuring the developmental space. Will it help a group, consultant or change agent when they are able to measure the developmental space? How can you measure the developmental space of a group? Measuring is problematic, because the developmental space is about the space the group experiences. How the group experiences the space can differ almost every moment. Measuring every dimensions seems obvious, but contradicts with the idea that the dimensions need to be balanced. Pinpointing the balance is also difficult because discussing and finding consensus about the experienced developmental space requires developmental space in itself.
The last questions concern the application of the model of developmental space. How can groups, consultants or change agents improve the developmental space of groups? What do they need to improve it?
References
(This is the complete list of references for the research-based paper)
Arets, J., & Heijnen, V. (2008). Kostbaar misverstand. Van training naar business improvement. [Costly misunderstanding. From training to business
improvement.] Den Haag, The Netherlands: Academic Service van Sdu. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(3), 321-327.
Bolhuis, S. (2009). Leren en veranderen. [Learning and change. ]. 3e herziene druk.
Bussum, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Coutinho BV.
Bolhuis, S.M., & Simons, P.R. J. (1999). Leren en werken. [Learning and working.] Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Borghans, L., Golsteyn, B. & de Grip, A. (2007). Wat leert onderzoek ons over informeel leren? [What does research learn us about informal learning? ] . Handboek Effectief Opleiden, 44/65, (8.6-1), 1-20.
Boonstra, J.J. (2000). Lopen over water. Over dynamiek van organiseren, vernieuwen en leren. [Walking on water. About the dynamics of organizing, changing and learning]. Rede, 10 February 2000. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Vossiuspers.
Boonstra, J.J. & Smid, G.A. (2003). Nieuwe eisen aan leiders. [ New requirements for leaders.] Tijdschrift Voor Management Development, 11(3), 21-24.
Brinkerhoff, R.O. (2002). The success case method. Find out quickly what’s working and what’s not. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Caluwé, L, de. (2007). Using simulation gaming for change of organizations and for change of corporate culture. In: Kriz, W. (Eds.): Planspiele für die
Organisationsentwicklung. Berlin: Wissenschaflicher Verlag.
Caluwé, L. de., & Vermaak, H. (2008) Leren veranderen. Een handboek voor de veranderkundige. [Learning to change. A handbook for the change agent. ] . 2e herziene druk, 5e oplage. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Coenders, M. (2008). Leerarchitectuur. Een exploratief onderzoek naar de relatie tussen ruimte en leren in werksituaties en het ontwerpen voor leren dichtbij de praktijk. [Learning architecture. An explorative research for the relation between space and learning in work situations and the design of learning near practice.] Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon.
Cooperrider, D.L., Whitney, D. & Stavros, J.M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook for leaders of change. (2nd edition). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Cross, J. (2007). Informal learning. Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Hager, P. & Halliday, J. (2009). Recovering informal learning. Wisdom, judgement and community. Dordrecht: Springer.
Harrison, R. & Kessels, J. (2004). Human resource development in a knowledge economy. An organizational view. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hermans, H.J.M. (2006). Dialoog en misverstand. [ Dialogue and misunderstanding. ] Soest, The Netherlands: Nelissen.
Hoebeke, L. (2004). Dilemmas and paradoxes in organizing change processes: A critical reflection. In: Boonstra, J. (ed.): Dynamics of Organizational Change and
Learning. Chichester: Wiley.
Homan, T. (2005). Organisatiedynamica. Theorie en praktijk van
organisatieverandering. [Organization dynamics. Theory and practice of organizational change] .Den Haag, The Netherlands: Sdu Uitgevers, bv. Kahane, A. (2010). Power & love. A theory and practice of social change. (M. Kriele,
Trans.) . Den Haag, The Netherlands: Sdu Uitgevers bv. (Original work published: 2010)
Kessels, J.W.M. (2001). Verleiden tot kennisproductiviteit. [Tempt to knowledge productivity.] Rede bij het aanvaarden van het ambt Hoogleraar HRD aan de faculteit Toegepaste Onderwijskunde Universiteit Twente, 8 februari 2001, The Netherlands.
Kessels, J., Boers, E., & Mostert, P. (2002). Vrije ruimte. Filosoferen in organisaties. [Free space. Philosophize in organizations.] Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Boom.
Leijen, Ä. (2008). The reflective dancer: ICT support for practical training. Proefschrift Universiteit Utrecht, 20 June, 2008, The Netherlands.
Marsick, V.J. & Watkins, K.E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning at the workplace. London: Routledge.
Mintzber, H. (2007) . Tracking strategies: Toward a general theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ofman, D.D. (1999). Bezieling en kwaliteit in organisaties. [Animation and quality in organizations.] 9e druk. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Kosmos-Z&K Uitgevers B.V. Quinn, R.E. (2005). Building the bridge as you walk on it. A guide for leading change.
(L. Belt. Trans.) . 1e druk, 2e oplage. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Academic Service. (Original work published: 2004)
Ruijters, M. (2007). ‘Goh, het lijkt net werk…’ Het organiseren van informeel leren. [‘Gosh, it looks just like work.’ Organizing informal learning. ] In: Leren in Organisaties, (12), 14-18.
Scharmer, C. O. (2007). Theory U : Leading from the future as it emerges: The social technology of presencing. Cambridge: Society for Organizational Learning. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schweigert, F.J. (2007). Learning to lead: Strengthening the practice of community leadership. Leadership, 3(3), 325–342
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change. The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York: Doubleday.
Simmons, O. E. (2010). Is that a real theory or did you just make it up? Teaching classic grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review, 9(2), 15-38.
Vandendriessche, F., & Clement, J. (2006). Leidinggeven zonder bevelen. De outputmanager. Een praktijkboek over leidinggeven vanuit visie. [Managing
wihtout demands. The output manager. A practical guide about managing out of vision.] Tielt, Belgium: Uitgeverij Lannoo nv.
Van Es, R. (2008). Veranderdiagnose. De onderstroom organiseren. [Changediagnoses. To organize the undercurrent.] Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Verdonschot. S. (2009) . Learning to innovate. A series of studies to explore and enable learning in innovation practices. Twente, The Netherlands: University
Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs. Naar procesgerichte instructie in zelfstandig denken. [ Learning styles and guiding learning processes in higher education. Towards process oriented instruction in autonomic thinking.] Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.
Visscher-Voerman, J.I.A. (1999). Design approaches in training and education: A reconstructive study. PhD. Thesis at the University of Twente, Netherlands. Vroemen, M. (2009). Team op vleugels. Gids voor geïnspireerd samenwerken. [Team
on wings. Guide for inspired cooperation]. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., Mc.Dermott, R., & Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wierdsma, A.F.M. & Swieringa, J. (2002). Lerend organiseren. Als meer van hetzelfde niet helpt. [Learning to organize. Whenever more of the same does not work anymore.] (2e herziene druk) . Groningen, The Netherlands: Stenfert Kroese. Wijsbek, J. (2009). De dialogische organisatie. [The dialogical organization.] Assen,
The Netherlands: Koninklijke van Gorcum BV.
Woerkom, M. van. (2004) . Kritisch reflectief werkgedrag: Interactie tussen organisatie en individu. [ Critical reflective work behaviour: Interaction between
organization and individual.] In J. Streumer & M. van der Klink (wds.) , Leren op de werkplek. (pp. 111-132).Gravenhage, The Netherlands: Reed Business Information BV.
