Collaborative development of dispersed experiential opportunities.

Abstract

Educational experiential learning offerings must be adjusted to provide relevant opportunities for the advancing change-based environment. Leading collaborative experiential instructors can develop opportunities that allow students to co-construct their knowledge for working in the advancing workplace environment. This paper suggests experiential activities that incorporate the virtual or dispersed domain, teamwork, networks and the need to develop knowledge for problem solution options. It's time to experiment to ensure experiential learning opportunities provide students with insight for the changing times.

**********

The world of work is changing (Carnevale, 1995; Drucker, 1994; Fullan, 1993) and advancing forces are creating a "fundamentally new world" (Homer-Dixon, 2001, p. 48). The pressure on the "culture, structure and strategies" (Limerick, Cunnington & Crowther, 1998, p. 8) is causing work environment adaptations (Choo & Bontis, 2002). Experiential models must integrate the constructs of the emerging environment to prepare students for the advancing new world.

Significance of the problem

Greider (1997) expressed strong concerns that the number of individuals that will not succeed "will far outnumber the winners!" (p. 3) as the transformation to the advancing change-based environment requires new capabilities (Limerick et al., 1998; Howard, 1995; Somerville & Mroz, 1997). The change-based environment is subject to linear and discontinuous forces (Homer-Dixon, 2001; Howard, 1995) and necessitates the ability to manage within the presented conditions. Thus, experiential offerings must be "appropriate to the demands of a different era" (Bolt, 1996, p. 164) to provide students with the best possible advantage for a successful transition.

Experiential Opportunities that Provide Insights for the Times

The changing workplace is not clearly defined and this is problematic for instructors preparing students for an environment that will be significantly different, and yet cannot be absolutely predetermined (Homer-Dixon, 2001). However, this research is underscored by the belief that the currently understood change-based work conditions can be extrapolated from the literature to provide a framework for experiential opportunities that offer insight into the emerging era. This paper offers a literature review of selected key forces of change as foundational components for the development of experiential learning opportunities to prepare students for a place in the change-based workforce.

Methodology & Review of Literature

A literature review was used to determine the key constructs of the change-based work environment. The challenge was to select a few key forces of change applicable to the creation of experiential opportunities that can represent the change-based work environment. The investigation considered arising new conditions to include four key building blocks of the change-based environment including: (1) the dispersed or virtual domain; (2) the concept of teams; (3) the construct of a network and, (4) the need for knowledge creation.

The Dispersed Domain The dispersed (or virtual) domain includes a freedom to work from anywhere in the world, with the basic technology of the computer and internet as the supportive system. The dispersed method of work allows the organization and management of issues, people and activities, without the confinements of boundaries (Grant, 2002; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). There is a freedom to work from anywhere in the world and everyone has the potential to work as an "electronic immigrant" (Beck, 1998, p. 3) by commuting with only the use of the communication links provided by the latest technology and a problem or issue (Miller, 1997) to manage.

The Concept of Teams We live in an advancing "knowledge society" (cf. Nonaka, 2001, p. 437) and Drucker (1994) showed that the knowledge workers tend to complete their work in a team format. The constructs of each team is dependent on one variable--the specific needs of the problem. The teams generally consist of a "small unit ..., a self-contained decision-making group that can work towards being efficient in obtaining information or knowledge" (cf. Limerick et al., 1998, p. 54). Team structure works best when self-organized (Hour, 1999; Howard, 1995) and able to "evolve" (Hunt, 1999, p. 5) and re-evolve to meet the requirements of the moment. The selection of the team members may change with the needs (Miller, 1997); members can move in and out as the team "subtly reconfigure(s)" (Bridges, 1996, p. 15). If a problem has been resolved or redefined, teams may disband or new teams can be created (Miller, 1997) to manage other issues.

The construct of a network Teams can be interconnected in 'loosely coupled' (Limerick et al., 1998) units to create a structural system. The interconnected teams can create a network to obtain potential problem options. The advance of the network requires good relationships (Fullan, 2001) with the aim to "establish alliances" (Limerick et al., 1998, p. 43) to propel the team towards the success. Everyone within a network is required to become a collaborative individual (Limerick et al., 1998) and the social activity of the network can assist in determining the requirements, directions, decisions, innovations, and options for managing the current problem. The competitive advantage is found in teams that emphasize improving efficiency and developing high levels of quality, innovation and responsiveness (Hill & Jones, 2001) and a well constructed network can assist in this endeavour.

The need to develop knowledge Knowledge is a "central feature" (cf. Choo & Bontis, 2001, p. 47) in the advancing change-based environment. Everyone must learn to facilitate the creation of knowledge (Drucker, 1993; Limerick et al., 1998) to "become a source of capital themselves" (Beck, 1998, p. 181). An individual uses their personal knowledge as a source of judgment (Spender, 2001) when developing ideas and resolving problems and uncertainties (Blacker, 2001; Von Krogh & Grand, 2002). To begin, one must learn to understand the problem through "knowledge acquisition" (cf. Limerick et al., 1998, p. 214). There is a requirement to secure data, develop relationships and gain insights on the topic (Grant, 1996; Spender, 1994). In addition, the data collected must be converted to a usable form of knowledge (Pollard, 1996) for application (Choo & Bontis, 2002). In order to fulfill this requirement, it is understood that the dissemination of the developed information can assist in the "dialoguing and interaction" (Nonaka, 1994) that is necessary for the development of unique insights and innovations (Howard, 1995; Zack, 2002) and potentially changing "the way things are done" (Pinchot, 1996, p. 28) for success in a change-based environment.

Discussion

Collaborative educators can develop dispersed experiential opportunities to assist student understanding of the advancing change-based environment. There is no need to remove the experiential opportunities currently available, as elements are still applicable. However, augmenting current options could provide insights into the advancing work environment. The framework for a dispersed change-based experiential opportunity can be extracted from the current literature. The focus on four key building block elements of the change-based work environment, found in the literature, provide the constructs for an experiential domain for the advancing environment.

Collaborative educators can develop change-based experiential opportunities with institutional and cross-institutional teams that allow students to actively explore the advancing dispersed work environment with a real problem in hand. Student teams, with members that can work from anywhere, can be created. The initial team member numbers are not fixed entities, as team requirements evolve, the membership may be adjusted. Creative methods of organizing can be developed. Examples include the selection of team members from several classes, different institutions or countries. Or, the team members are selected due to the cross-functionality of the particular member(s). No pre-set structural framework should be forced upon the team as self-organizing system must be developed. The framework must arise from the requirements of the problem. The students must master dispersed teamwork as a basic construct of the change-based work environment "as more and more organizations reengineer themselves into what are, in effect, collections of projects and task forces ..." (Handy, 1997, p. 6). Students will have to understand how to work with and through dispersed others because "no one person can possibly master all of the divergent sources of information necessary to make good decisions" (Ulrich, 1996, p. 213). If Miller (1997) is correct and "[t]eams will form around a problem" (p. 123), then exposure to and work with real problems is necessary. Examples include a problem in a developing country or a local community organization. The role of every team member is to develop an understanding of the issue, with the aim of developing knowledge options for the problem.

The dispersed team must determine how to develop an intertwined entity without physical proximity. The team requires basic on-line communication technology currently found at most educational institutions and the aim is to develop potential knowledge options for the problem. Every team member is responsible for themselves and they must be "self-directed [and] self-managed" (Miller, 1997, p. 123) and function autonomously (Limerick, et al., 1998). The instructor reporting relationship should allow for the team to self-manage, although an evaluation structure can be determined. A challenge of the dispersed method of work includes the problems of cooperation and coordination (Grant, 2002). Standard rules for the teams to follow are not available and strategies must be developed. Each team must develop their operating system, rules process for directives, sequencing, coordinating efforts, and decision-making (Grant, 2002, p. 138). According to Goldsmith (1998) the "editing and efficiently accessing truly relevant information will be a key challenge for the future" (p. 102). Experience today may assist the student success rate in the future.

The team is looking to creatively "dialogue" (Bridges, 1996, p. 15) with the information to innovatively see "and respond ... by changing the way things are done" (Pinchot, 1996, p. 28). Each dispersed team will need to "establish alliances" (Limerick, 1998, p. 43) and meet the need for "relationships that make the difference." (Fullan, 2001, p. 51). Every team member is responsible for the collaboration that "leads to problem resolution" (of. Cunteen & Schneider, 2001, p. 273) options and according to Fullan (2001), it is the "...knowledge sharing [that] fuels [the] relationships." (p. 76). Ultimately, the team interprets, translates and applies the data to develop potential problem "options, ... [looking for] the possible rather than the perfect" (Handy, 1996, p. 4).

Conclusion

Students today require experiential opportunities that promote their training for work in the advancing change-based environment. This current institutional challenge does not require wholesale changes to experiential programs, just the addition of experiential opportunities for the demands of a new era. It is suggested that the basic building blocks of the constructs for a change-based experiential learning opportunity include the dispersed work domain, the concept of self-organized teams working on a real problem or issue, the construct of a network for a specific problem and the need to develop knowledge. It is important that the framework of the experience mirror the advancing change-based work environment as much as possible. Collaborative educators can offer dispersed (or virtual) opportunities that are uniquely different, the only constraints can be found to be from the problem itself. The aim is to develop strategies for working that generate options for the problem. To date, research on the use of dispersed experiential learning opportunities for students has been neglected. Students need instructors to change "with changing circumstances" (Homer-Dixon, 2001, p. 282) and to rise to the era-rent challenges by experimenting and offering change-based experiential opportunities that assist students to prepare for their future.

References

Beck, Nula (1998). The Next Century: Why Canada Wins. Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.

Blackler, F., (2002). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. In C.W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge, (pp. 47-64). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bolt, J. (1996). Developing three-dimensional leaders. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The leader of the future, (pp. 161-173). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bridges, W. (1996). Leading the de-jobbed organization. In F. Hesselbein, M.

Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The leader of the future, (p. 11-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carnevale, A. (1995). Enhancing skills in the new economy. In A. Howard (Ed.), The Changing Nature of Work, (pp. 238-251). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Choo, W.C. & Bontis, N. eds. (2002). The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cunteen, J., and Schneider, R. (October, 2001). Sport in the third millennium: A retrospective and perspective on 1990s and 2000-era sport. Journal of Sport Management, 15(4), pp. 267-274.

Drucker, P. (1994). 'The age of social transformation'. Atlantic Monthly, 275(5), pp. 53-80.

Duarte, D. and Snyder, N. (1999). Mastering virtual teams. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, Michael (1993), Change forces: probing the depths of educational reform. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Fullan, Michael (2001) Leading in a culture of change. Etobicoke: John Wiley and Sons Canada Ltd.

Goldsmith, M. (1998). Global communications and communities of choice. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, R. Beckhard, & R. Schubert (Eds.), The community of the future, (pp. 101-114). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grant, R. (2002). The knowledge-based view of the firm. In C.W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, (pp. 133-148). New York: Oxford University Press.

Greider, W. (1997) One world, ready or not: The manic logic of global capitalism. New York: Simon & Shuster.

Handy, C. (1997). Unimagined futures. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The organization of the future, (pp. 377-383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hill, C., & Jones, G. (2001). Strategic management theory: An integrated approach. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Homer-Dixon T. (2001). The ingenuity gap: Can we solve the problems of the future? Toronto: Vintage Canada.

Hour, Thomas, M. (March-April, 1999). Are managers obsolete? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 161-172.

Howard, A., Editor. (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jarvenpaa, S. and Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), pp. 791-815.

Lewis, R. (1998). Membership and management of a 'virtual' team: The perspectives of a research manager. R & D Management, 28(1), pp. 5-12.

Limerick, D., Cunnington, B., and Crowther, F. (1998). Managing the new organization--collaboration and sustainability in the post-corporate world (2nd ed). Warriewood, NSW, Australia: Business & Professional Publishing.

Miller, D. (1997). The future organization: A chameleon in all its glory. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The organiz of the future, (pp. 119-125). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science 5, pp. 14-37.

Nonaka, I. (2001). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. In C.W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, (pp. 437-462). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pinchot, G. (1996). Creating organizations with many leaders. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The leader of the future, (pp. 25-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 25-40.

Somerville, I., Mroz, J. (1997). New competencies for a new world. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds), The organization of the future (pp.65-80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spender, J. (1994). Organizational knowledge, collective practice and penrose rents. International Business Review 3(4), pp. 353-367.

Ulrich, D. (1996). Credibility x capability. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith & R. Beckhard (Eds), The leader of the future, (pp. 209-220). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Von Krogh, G & Grand, S. (2002). From economic theory toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm: Conceptual building blocks. In C. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge (pp. 163-184). New York: Oxford University Press.

Zack, M. (2002). Developing a knowledge strategy. In C.W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, (pp. 255-276). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cheryl Mallen, Brock University, Canada Cheri Bradish, Brock University, Canada

Mallen, EdD (ABD), is a lecturer at the Department of Sport Management. Bradish, PhD (ABD), is a lecturer at the Department of Sport Management.