Building belief in organizational learning: the role of organizational learning efficacy

There appears to be a missing dimension in OL literature to embrace the collective experience of emotion, both within groups and communities and also across the organization as a whole. The concept of OL efficacy- as a stimulus offering energy and direction for learning - remains unexplored. This research involved engaging with a company we have called ‘Electroco’ in depth to create a rich and nuanced representation of OL and members’ perceptions of OL over an extended time-frame (five years). We drew upon grounded theory research methodology (Locke, 2001), to elicit feedback from the organization, which was then used to inform future research plans and/ or refine emerging ideas. The concept of OL efficacy gradually emerged as a factor to be considered when exploring the relationship between individual learning and OL. . Bearing in mind Bandura’s (1982) conceptualization of self-efficacy (linked with mastery, modelling, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal), we developed a coding strategy encompassing these four factors as conceptualized at the organizational level. We added a fifth factor: ‘control of OL.’ We focused on feelings across the organization and the extent of consensus or otherwise around these five attributes. The construct has potential significance for how people are managed in many ways. Not only is OL efficacy is difficult for competitors to copy (arising as it does from the collective experience of working within a specific context); the self-efficacy concept suggests that success can be engineered with ‘small wins’ to reinforce mastery perceptions. Leaders can signal the importance of interaction with the external context, and encourage reflection on the strategies adopted by competitors or benchmark organizations (modelling). The theory also underlines the key role managers may play in persuading others about their organization’s propensity to learn (by focusing on success stories, for example). Research is set to continue within other sectors, including the high-performance financial service sector as well as the health-care technology sector.

Learning to be different:heterogeneity and efficiency in distributed smart camera networks

In this paper we study the self-organising behaviour of smart camera networks which use market-based handover of object tracking responsibilities to achieve an efficient allocation of objects to cameras. Specifically, we compare previously known homogeneous configurations, when all cameras use the same marketing strategy, with heterogeneous configurations, when each camera makes use of its own, possibly different marketing strategy. Our first contribution is to establish that such heterogeneity of marketing strategies can lead to system wide outcomes which are Pareto superior when compared to those possible in homogeneous configurations. However, since the particular configuration required to lead to Pareto efficiency in a given scenario will not be known in advance, our second contribution is to show how online learning of marketing strategies at the individual camera level can lead to high performing heterogeneous configurations from the system point of view, extending the Pareto front when compared to the homogeneous case. Our third contribution is to show that in many cases, the dynamic behaviour resulting from online learning leads to global outcomes which extend the Pareto front even when compared to static heterogeneous configurations. Our evaluation considers results obtained from an open source simulation package as well as data from a network of real cameras. © 2013 IEEE.

Developing a robust self evaluation framework for active learning:the first stage of an ERASMUS+ project (QAEMarketPlace4HEI)

In ensuring the quality of learning and teaching in Higher Education, self-evaluation is an important component of the process. An example would be the approach taken within the CDIO community whereby self-evaluation against the CDIO standards is part of the quality assurance process. Eight European universities (Reykjavik University, Iceland; Turku University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Aarhus University, Denmark; Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Ume? University, Sweden; Telecom Bretagne, France; Aston University, United Kingdom; Queens University Belfast, United Kingdom) are engaged in an EU funded Erasmus + project that is exploring the quality assurance process associated with active learning. The development of a new self-evaluation framework that feeds into a ?Marketplace? where participating institutions can be paired up and then engage in peer evaluations and sharing around each institutions approach to and implementation of active learning. All of the partner institutions are engaged in the application of CDIO within their engineering programmes and this has provided a common starting point for the partnership to form and the project to be developed. Although the initial focus will be CDIO, the longer term aim is that the approach could be of value beyond CDIO and within other disciplines. The focus of this paper is the process by which the self-evaluation framework is being developed and the form of the draft framework. In today?s Higher Education environment, the need to comply with Quality Assurance standards is an ever present feature of programme development and review. When engaging in a project that spans several countries, the wealth of applicable standards and guidelines is significant. In working towards the development of a robust Self Evaluation Framework for this project, the project team decided to take a wide view of the available resources to ensure a full consideration of different requirements and practices. The approach to developing the framework considered: a) institutional standards and processes b) national standards and processes e.g. QAA in the UK c) documents relating to regional / global accreditation schemes e.g. ABET d) requirements / guidelines relating to particular learning and teaching frameworks e.g. CDIO. The resulting draft self-evaluation framework is to be implemented within the project team to start with to support the initial ?Marketplace? pairing process. Following this initial work, changes will be considered before a final version is made available as part of the project outputs. Particular consideration has been paid to the extent of the framework, as a key objective of the project is to ensure that the approach to quality assurance has impact but is not overly demanding in terms of time or paperwork. In other words that it is focused on action and value added to staff, students and the programmes being considered.