Työ ja oppiminen rengastehtaassa. Organisatorinen oppiminen sekä sitä edistävät ja ehkäisevät tekijät teollisessa oppimisympäristössä

Abstract

Oppiva organisaatio on ollut parin viime vuosikymmenen ajan yksi työyhteisöjen kehittämisen keskeisistä ideoista. Oppivan organisaation tutkimuksessa piirretään kuva konsensuksesta työpaikkojen luonnollisena tilana ja ne esitetään yksilöiden oppimisen, luovuuden ja henkilökohtaisen kasvun paikkoina. Tässä tutkimuksessa otettiin kriittinen asenne oppivan organisaation perinteeseen ja todettiin, että siinä ei riittävästi huomioida oppimisen kontekstia tai oppimisympäristöä.

Tutkimuksen kohteena oli suomalaisessa autonrenkaita valmistavassa tehtaassa toteutettu 3-vuotinen kehittämishanke, jonka tavoitteena oli luoda tehtaasta "asiakassuuntautunut prosessiorganisaatio". Kehittämistyötä toteutettiin kolmen menetelmällisen kokonaisuuden keinoin, jotka olivat esimiesvalmennus, tiimikohtainen pelisääntövalmennus sekä osastojen rajat ylittävä ongelmanratkaisuvalmennus. Analysoitavana oli kaksi kollektiivista ongelmanratkaisuprosessia, joiden tarkastelussa käytettiin hyväksi nelivaiheista organisatorisen oppimisen mallia.

Teollisessa oppimisympäristössä keskeisiksi oppimiseen vaikuttaviksi tekijöiksi tunnistettiin työnjako, työnjohto- ja päätöksentekojärjestelmät, palkkaus- ja palautejärjestelmät, koulutus- ja kehittämisjärjestelmät, työelämän suhteet, tehdaskulttuuri sekä mikropolitiikka. Organisaatio- tai mikropolitiikkaan liittyvät tekijät vaikuttivat olennaisesti ongelmanratkaisuprosessien etenemiseen ja ratkaisujen sisältöön. Keskeisenä johtopäätöksenä todettiin, että organisatorinen oppiminen on ytimeltään varsin poliittinen prosessi.

Usein esitetty väite teollisen tuotannon perusteellisesta muuttumisesta massatuotannosta ns. kevyttuotannon suuntaan on tutkimuksen mukaan kyseenalainen. Pikemminkin on lisääntyvässä määrin nähtävissä uudenlaisia yhdistelmiä, joissa erilaisten tuotantoperiaatteiden elementit sekoittuvat toisiinsa. Tuotantolaitokset pyrkivät integroimaan tuotantoonsa erilaisia hyviksi käytännöiksi määriteltyjä tekniikoita tai periaatteita tehtaan historian kuluessa muotoutuneen sosiaalisen järjestyksen puitteissa. Lopputuloksena on yhden vallitsevan mallin sijaan monenkirjavia hybridimalleja. Kyseisessä tuotantolaitoksessa tunnistettiin fordistisen, sosioteknisen ja kevyttuotannon elementeistä koostuva tuotantotapa.

Kehittämishankkeessa menetelmänä ollut ongelmaperustaisen oppimisen sovellus antoi lupaavia tuloksia. Osastojen välisten kollektiivisten ongelmanratkaisujen myötä henkilöstön käsitys prosessin eri vaiheiden merkityksestä kokonaisuuden kannalta paranee. Reagoiminen häiriötilanteisiin nopeutuu kehittyneempien viestintäkanavien myötä, ja ongelmatilanteisiin kyetään varautumaan ennakoivasti, kun työntekijät pystyvät aiempaa paremman ymmärryksen varassa tekemään johtopäätöksiä prosessin kulussa nähtävissä olevista yllättävistä muutoksista. Lisäksi väärinkäsitykset häiriöiden ja vastoinkäymisten syistä vähenevät, kun syitä aletaan etsiä "faktapohjalta" itse tuotantoprosessista, eikä niinkään esimerkiksi henkilötasolta tai naapuriosaston tahallisesta toiminnasta. Tällä voi olla merkittävä työyhteisön ilmapiiriä parantava vaikutus.

Ongelmaperustaisen oppimisen menetelmän luonteeseen kuuluu, että kehittämistarpeet pyritään rajaamaan pieniin ja mahdollisimman konkreettisiin ongelmiin, jotka on mahdollista ratkaista tai joihin voidaan suhteellisen helposti vaikuttaa. Näiden pienten ja lähellä olevien ongelmien kautta avautuu kuitenkin lähes väistämättä liittymäpintoja suurempiin ja syvällisempiin toimintatavallisiin kehittämistarpeisiin, joista tullaan tietoisiksi, ja parhaassa tapauksessa käynnistyy myös niiden työstäminen. Pienet ja suuret asiat tulevat luontevasti yhtä aikaa pohdittaviksi. Tällä tavoin yksikehäinen oppiminen voi tasoittaa tietä kaksikehäiselle oppimiselle.

The study was conducted in the context of a three-year development project implemented in a Fin-nish car tyre factory. The business-strategy-related aim of the project was to create out of the factory a customer-oriented process organization . This development work was done by employing three methodological means: supervisor training, team-specific training concerning the norms that guide action as well as inter-departmental training in problem-based learning (PBL) as a special object of empirical analysis. In the research project, PBL was understood as a development method that would exploit the basic ideas of problem-based learning.

The study focused on learning processes taking place in a certain context or in a certain learning environment. The approach to learning was practice-based, meaning that learning and knowledge are not separate processes or events detached from the learning environment but part of the social practices and related social meanings of it. These practices are fundamentally attached to work and productions processes; hence, the understanding of these practices and their significance from the viewpoint of individual, group and organizational learning grows in importance. This development project was also part of the learning environment; it provided a forum in which learning processes could be brought about. For the purposes of the present study, the following research questions were developed:

1. What kind of learning environment does an industrial production plant provide and what kind of development trend in organizing work and production can be observed in it? 2. What kinds of processes of organizational learning were created and identified in the course of the development project and which factors in the learning environment affected these processes, either by promoting or hindering them? 3. What kinds of results were gained in the development project and what kinds of experiences did the participants have of its effect on their own work and working environment?

Methodologically, a case study strategy was chosen for the purposes of the present research. The data was collected by means of observation, personal interviews, tape-recorded group discussions or PBL discussions and related memos, in-depth scrutiny of numerous background memos written regarding the preparatory phase of the development project, an evaluation survey as well as notes taken on the basis of information gained in numerous unofficial conversations. Analysis was conducted of two collective problem-solving processes, which were explored by employing a four-phase model of organizational learning.

In response to the first research question about the direction of change in the production model and teamwork, it can be stated that although the production model in the factory was still Fordist, sev-eral elements distinctive to the socio-technical model and lean production could be identified. The scale advantage typical of Fordism, strict division of functions and tasks, related internal divisions among workers, pace of work determined by specialized machinery, and differentiation of planning and implementing laid the foundation for production. On the other hand, there had been efforts to decrease Fordist inflexibilities by putting into use highly autonomous production teams, and re-sponsible autonomy as part of socio-technical thinking was distinctive to the factory culture. There were also other features that can be characterized as elements of lean production: an increase in co-operation, interdependencies and transparency; efforts to achieve multiskilling, the aim of which was primarily to take advantage of the workforce as efficiently as possible; increasing the responsi-bility of workers for quality; efforts to standardize work and activities as well as to make workers participate in the development of the processes. In organization of work, elements of both anti- and neo-Tayloristic teamwork could be identified.

The findings support the view that the development trend of industrial production increasingly in-cludes hybrid models in which various elements integrate and form new kinds of combinations. Production plants seek to integrate into their production various techniques that have been defined as good practices or principles within the limits defined by the company s production policy and within the plant-specific social order formed in the course of its history. Instead of one prevailing model, this results in mixed hybrid models consisting of an array of best practices applied to the company s local specific operational context.

In response to the second research question concerning learning processes, it can be stated that there were phases identified in the problem-solving process which were introduced in the theoretical part of the study when processes and models of organizational learning were looked at. The model not only made it possible to organize the complex problem-solving process and to differentiate and clar-ify the focal points of the process, but also presented problems: it proved exceedingly simplified and nearly ignored the context of learning.

The following factors influencing learning ­ preventive, conducive or ones that generally shape learning ­ were identified: 1) technical division of work, tasks and design of work; 2) management, control and decision systems; 3) salary and feedback systems; 4) training and development systems; and 5) industrial relations, factory culture and micro-politics. In the problem-solving processes ex-plored, segmentation of the production process into separate phases was the core problem. In the course of time, sub-processes, work shifts and workshops had become collectives of their own, which led to a situation in which interaction and exchange of information by interacting did not take place easily. On the contrary, there was competition between departments and process phases, which efficiently prevented information from being exchanged.

What set the preconditions and the starting point for learning was organization of work and produc-tion, along with which groups with different practices and different information had emerged, having their own work-related interests in the factory. Organization of work hindered mutual commu-nication, the possibility to move around and independently reflect on various issues. Likewise, management and decision-making processes had not particularly supported the learning processes, because in teams with a strong team leader, for example, the team leader s position was not much different from the traditional role of a foreman. In this respect, the practices of different teams greatly differed from each other, but in any case, the other team members were left with only a small number of tasks related to decision making.

As far as training and development activities are concerned, what was distinctive to the learning environment of the factory was that management strongly supported and encouraged individuals to learn and to increase the level of their professional skills. The situation, however, varied somewhat by position and occupation. For example, there were many production workers who did not necessarily see developing individual skills and know-how as a significant opportunity. Development work done on the job was typically unofficial and occasional, meaning that the knowledge gained through experiments and improvements was left with some individuals only and remained tacit or it was left with a small group and remained group-internal. Besides the initiative system, there were no other development work practices which would have supported systematic and organizational learning, although the collective parts of the salary system did support organizational learning. The different practices, interests and power positions of the factory departments and groups surfaced in the course of the problem-solving process and showed as silence and more or less open resistance, on the one hand, and as support for initiatives made at meetings and working on them actively, on the other. Factors linked to organizational or micro-politics did have a significant effect on how the problem-solving processes advanced and on the content of the solutions reached. The main conclu-sion that can be made here is that organizational learning is fundamentally a political process.

The findings concerning the third research question about the results of the development project confirm that the results gained were positive. Earlier separate process phases were brought together in PBL training to solve problems in the production process that were common to all. A typical situation was that the knowledge required to solve the problems was scattered across different de-partments, leading to a situation that did not provide any ready-made solutions. At PBL meetings, this knowledge was collected and transformed into new knowledge that nobody had had before.

The findings of the research and development project under study were promising from the view-point of developing work process knowledge. The study indicated that along with increasing work process knowledge, the personnel understands much better each other s tasks and the significance of all phases from the viewpoint of a whole process. Malfunctions and disruptions are reacted to and repair works are done faster because communication channels have improved and knowledge of possible causes is spread wider in the factory floor. Workers can also be better prepared for these situations in advance; because of a better understanding than earlier they are able to make conclu-sions about sudden changes in the course of a process. At the same time, misunderstandings and suspicions among the personnel of what causes the problems decrease. Blaming the department next door that easily occurs in a negative atmosphere decreases because due to increased work process knowledge the causes of malfunctions and mistakes are not blamed on fellow workers or thought of as having been caused deliberately. This may improve the working atmosphere signifi-cantly.

One of the supporting elements of the development method is also the view that change can be best generated by creating a positive attitude towards collective development. A workplace is always a whole that consists of different communities of practice , in which the preconditions for develop-ment are defined by the political settings within and among these communities and by the nature of the work process. The study raises an important issue of how organizational politics needs to taken into account in development work. The basic starting point can be that the developers need to be informed about the existence of organizational politics and that the role of the politics can very well be that of either promoting learning or hindering it. The developers need to know their target or-ganizations as well as possible and seek to gather information about the political settings between those involved in the developing work. Political processes largely define the extent to which an aim can be reached in a certain organization by means of development work promoted by an outsider. To a certain extent, understanding micro-politics in a certain context always requires understanding the specific nature of the context and the often relatively hidden struggle between different interests. This in turn requires the ability to go beyond the functional and unitarist view on organization. De-spite being partly autonomous, organizational politics is not born out of thin air: it is linked with the work and management practices, rewarding and development systems as well as with the techno-logical, financial and social dimension of the workplace. The study also shows that it is not enough to only sketch present development needs if knowledge of the most significant changes occurred in an organization in its recent history is not collected at the same time. Organizational changes can leave behind political tensions which may foil the plans for introducing new courses of action.

It is characteristic of the problem-based learning method that it seeks to limit the development needs to small and as concrete as possible problems that can be solved or that can be relatively eas-ily affected. It is nearly inevitable, however, that these small problems close by open up linkages with bigger and more in-depth development needs concerning courses of action, awareness raising, and in the best possible case, also provide tools for working on them. Big and small issues can then be easily considered at the same time. In this way, single-loop learning can pave the way for double-loop learning.