Integrated Roadmaps

byLeif Bloch RASMUSSEN and Viktoria SKARLER

(Copenhagen Business School)

eSangathan is a FP6 EU-funded project with the following consortium :

DISTANCE EXPERT Project Coordinator

Contact: Nicole TURBÉ-SUETENS
AGEPROOF
Contact: Marianne ZIEKEMEYER
COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL
Contact: Leif Bloch RASMUSSEN
FOLKUNIVERSITETET
Contact: Martina Sophia BACH
MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA Limited
Contact: Mandar VARTAK
NETCIPIA
Contact: Miguel MEMBRADO
TECHMAHINDRA Limited
Contact: Chitresh MARKANDA

www.esangathan.eu

1/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
WHAT YOU WILL FIND IN THIS DOCUMENT ................................................................ 3
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 4
2. OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................. 6
3. INTEGRATED ROADMAP .................................................................................. 7
3.1 OVERALL ROADMAP AS MOVEMENTS IN SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE 7
3.1.1 Social Learning Space 7
3.1.2 Inquiring Systems in a Knowledge Based Society 11
4. POTENTIAL MOVEMENTS IN THE SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE ......................................15
4.1 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HIERARCHY-UNSTRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL BOUNDARY 15
4.2 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL BOUNDARY 17
4.3 MOVEMENT AT THE UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL BOUNDARY 17
4.4 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL-CHAOTIC BOUNDARY 19
4.5 MOVEMENTS IN CHAOS 20
4.6 USE OF MOVEMENTS IN SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE IN PRACTICE 23
5. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................24
6. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ...............................................................................25

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Attempted movement in eSangathan ............................................................... 7

Figure 2 – Overall aim of movement in informational and social connectivity............................ 8
Figure 3 - Social Learning Space .................................................................................10
Figure 4 - Expansion of inquiring systems in a knowledge based society .................................13

2/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
WHAT YOU WILL FIND IN THIS DOCUMENT
This deliverable shows the experiences and development gained from the two pilots in the
eSangathan projects: Mahindra&Mahindra and Öresund Pilot. It integrates these experiences and
developments into a suggestion for an Integrated Roadmap for eInclusion for an ageing
workforce. Its starting point is the original joint work plan and the roadmaps planned for the
eSangathan project. The integrated roadmap draws heavily on the pilots and on theoretical
developments in the three year period that the eSangathan project was planned and carried out.
The original thinking on moving the participants towards WEB 2.0 has proven to be well advised,
yet it also involve a paradigm shift in understanding age, ICT and societal and human challenges
facing an ageing workforce.

A suggestion for a integrated roadmap based on three pillars of ICT/CWE, Informational

Connectivity and Informational connectivity is put forward – strongly supported by experiences
from the two eSangathan pilots. A roadmap aiming at both liberation and immunization in
handling ICT/CWE – or any methodology or tool - for supporting ‘an ageing workforce’ in a
globalized world with mutual trust as its first amendment.

This integrated roadmap are explicated and illustrated for users of the future in ICT/CWE
through ten potential movements as a social learning process, again heavily based on
experiences from the two eSangathan Pilots.

3/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
1. INTRODUCTION

In the final roadmap 1 we described how the overall roadmap and the specific roadmaps on
communication, collaboration, social learning and business modelling had been used and how
they had been changes during the work in the two pilots: Mahindra&Mahindra Pilot and Öresund
Pilot. After the evaluation of the pilots and the specific evaluation of ICT/CWE used 2 and based
on the evaluation of the methodologies and tools used for social learning we now turn back and
try to summarize experiences and evaluation into an Integrated Roadmap. This roadmap was
originally planned as a roadmap for working together in the future across countries, continents
and cultures by experimenting and drawing good practices on the methodologies for
employment, social learning and ICT/CWE for an ageing workforce. We hope this integrated
version will be able to contribute to that effort and bring the Indian and Öresund Pilots
practices, experiences and reflections together into a single framework. We still believe that
this is a possibility, especially through the original focus on a knowledge based global society.

On the other hand, the work in the two pilots cannot be brought together for the very simple
reason that the Indian Pilot focused on what during the lifespan of the project have come to be
called the Informational connectivity while the Öresund Pilot focused more on Social
Connectivity. An integrating tool - a wiki-solution - was tried out and it still gives hope for the
future, especially as we realize, that the CWE solution in the two pilots as well as the culture-
crossing wiki-solution were attempts at WEB 2.0 solution for cross cultural communication. But
what turned out of this experiment was that the integration of social- and informational
connectivity via CWE/ICT was lacking and may have await a deeper and broader understanding
of semantic WEB (eventually called WEB 3.0).

Here we have to keep in mind, that a face-to-face meeting between the participants in the two
pilots ‘only’ took place via the leaders of the two pilots and a meeting between one Öresund
Pilot participant and the Indian Pilot participants during the conference in Mumbai. Whether
more face-to-face meetings would have helped cannot be answered by the data available form
the pilots, but we suspect it would.

That said, the Integrated Roadmap will still be based on the Joint Work Plan and the
methodologies and CWE/ICT depicted there. However it will now take the form of a normative
description of movements in a Social Learning Space of the potentials in Informational and Social
connectivity supported by CWE/ICT.

The overall normative movement also are still aiming at supporting an ageing workforce (and
other humans in- or outside the workforce as well) to work and make a difference in handling

1
Deliverable D028.
2
Deliverables D031 for the ICT/CWE, D035/36 for the Öresund Pilot, D037/D038 for the
Mahindra&Mahindra Pilot.

4/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
structured problems in hierarchical settings as well as handling wicked/unstructured problems in
heterarchical settings. The road to follow by any network, individual or organization can – we
hope – be chosen or elaborated based on the description of the potential movement that we will
describe in the following paragraphs.

5/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
2. OBJECTIVE

The objective is to redefine the overall roadmap of the eSangathan project in such a way that it
may be used by networks, individuals and organization in creating employment, social learning,
work-life balance and ICT/CWE as a supporting vehicle for an ageing workforce.

Thereby we try to tell of possibilities gained from eSangathan in such a way that any individual,
organization and/or network can utilize the integrated roadmap to create their own specific
roadmap. It is to be taken as an inspiration, not a prescription that has to be followed step-by-
step.

6/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
3. INTEGRATED ROADMAP

3.1 OVERALL ROADMAP AS MOVEMENTS IN SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE

The overall roadmap consists of two main theoretical frameworks. One on what we call Social
Learning Space and one on Inquiring Systems thinking in the Informational Age.

3.1.1 SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE

The first part consists in finding and elaborating on the pilot position in an originally undefined
two times two matrixes by Miguel Membrado. He depicted the road we would have to follow in
order to cope with the challenges in a globalized knowledge-based world. This movement is
shown in fig.1:

Figure 1 - Attempted movement in eSangathan

Participation
(Self-Organizing
Heterarchies)

Web 2.0

Unstructured
Structured (Wicked)
Problems/Context Problems/Context

Direction
(Hierarchy)

It consists of two dimensions:

• Structured problems – wicked/unstructured problems, where we look at challenges as
consisting of solvable problems at the one end and un-solvable problems at the other
end
• Hierarchical Context – Heterarchical Context, where attempts to formulate and solve
problems are formed. At the one end we have a hierarchical context where directions
are given form outside and above, and at the other end we have a heterarchical

7/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
 context, where there are no directions, but participation and self-organizing are
needed.
These two dimensions have been reframed by two other dimensions during the lifespan of the
project:
• Informational Connectivity, where overview and consistency of information are
important together with semantics
• Social Connectivity, where social cohesion among people and in society are important
together with pragmatics
At the same time we have used the experiences in the pilots together with the work of the
Cynefin Centre in Wales (see Kurtz, C.F. & Snowden, D. (2003) and Snowden, D. (2002) to
connect value making, relation making, decision making and sense making into a social learning
space as shown in fig. 2.

Figure 2 – Overall aim of movement in informational and social connectivity

8/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
 Quadrant 3
Quadrant 4
Social Structured/Heterarchical
Unstructured/Heterarchical
Connectivity •Complex knowing
• Chaos knowing
•Informal Independent • Uncharted innovative
•The informal organization • Temporary Communities
•Social Networks • Disruptive Space
•Cause and effect are only coherent • No cause and effect relationships
perceivable
•in retrospect and do not repeat • Stability-focused intervention
•Pattern management • Enactment tools
•Perspective Filters • Crisis management

•Complex adaptive systems • Act-Sense-Respond

•Probe-Sense-Respond
Weak Central-Weak Distributed
power over knowing creation and
Weak Central, Strong Distributed
sharing
power over knowing creation
and sharing

Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2

Structured/Hierarchical Unstructured/Hierarchical

• Known knowing • Knowable knowing

• Bureaucratic Structured
• Coherent Groupings
• Largely information
• Cause and effect relations
repeatable, perceivable and
predictable
• Legitimate best practice
• Standard operating procedures
• Process reengineering
• Sense- Categorize-Respond
Strong Central-Weak
Distributed power over knowing
creation and sharing
• Professional Logical
• Communities of Practice
• Known membership and objectives
• Cause and effect separated over
time and space
• Analytical/Reductionist
• Scenario Planning
• Systems Thinking
• Sense-Analyze-Respond
Strong Central-Strong
Distributed power over knowing
creation and sharing

Informational
Connectivity

Bringing these two opinions together we get a social learning space that looks like in fig. 3.

9/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
 Figure 3 - Social Learning Space

Social
Connectivity
Participation
(Self-Organizing
Heterarchies)
WEB 2.0
WEB 3.0

Unstructured
Structured
(Wicked)
Problems/Context
Problems/Context

Direction
(Hierarchy)

Informational
connectivity

In this image it is the hypothesis that moving from hierarchy to heterarchy can bring
social connectivity about at the same time as moving from handling structured problems
towards handling un-structured (wicked) problems can bring informational connectivity
about. Both these movements can be supported by ICT/CWE. The challenge is to find a
proper balance between these three possibilities in the social learning space.

To that we suggest the help from Inquiring Systems thinking in order to create a
collaborative working environment.

10/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
3.1.2 INQUIRING SYSTEMS IN A KNOWLEDGE BASED SOCIETY

The second part of the methodology in the overall roadmap consists in finding and elaborating
on the one’s position in the Inquiring Systems thinking in the Informational Age. In this we take a
Collaborative Working Environment (CWE) to consist of, at least some persons of a certain
Inquiring Types who faces Problems within some Organizational Context for which they need
Evidence to arrive at solutions, where the evidence is made available through some mode of
Presentation. Any design for a CWE must consider the following possibilities:

1. Inquiring Type
Introvert – Extrovert as:
• Thinking-Sensation type
• Thinking-Intuition type
• Feeling-Sensation type
• Feeling-Intuition type

2. Class of Problems
Symmetric – Asymmetric Information in:
• Structured problems
• Decisions under certainty
• Decisions under risk
• Decisions under uncertainty
• Un-structured – “Wicked” Decision Problems

3. Methods of Evidence Generation and Guarantor of Evidence – Inquiring Systems (IS)

• Lockian IS (Data Based)
• Leibnizian IS (Model Based)
• Kantian IS (Multiple Based)
• Hegelian IS (Deadly Enemy – Conflicting Models)
• Singerian/Churchmanian IS (Learning Systems)

4. Organizational Context
Hierarchical/Mandatory
• Strategic Planning
• Management Control
• Operational Control
Heterarchical/Participatory
• Normative value based

11/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
 • Self Control
• Self-Organizing

5. Modes of Presentation
Personalistic
• Drama – Role Plays
• Art – Graphics
• One-to-One contact group interaction
Impersonalistic
• Company Reports
• Abstract Models – computerized information systems

First of all the possibility for designing and implementing a CWE that could take all of these
factors into account is not possible. A simple count will give 2048 combinations. The same holds
for designing and implementing methodologies that would suit any constellation of a pilot. The
complexity proliferates and only dialogue and self-organizing may handle the complexity.
However, we can hypothesize some hints.

A constellation of {thinking-sensation, structured, lockian/leibnizian, hierarchical and

impersonalistic} may best describe quadrant 1 situations. At the other end a constellation of
{feeling-intuition, unstructured (wicked), kantian/hegelian/singer-churchmanian and
personalistic} could describe the situation in quadrant 4. The first crucial issue – is of course the
inquiring types. In ICT/CWE in the age of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 it seems as if the
extrovert/introvert thinking-sensation inquiring type is prevalent, while in the age of Web 3.0
(and maybe Web 4.0) the extrovert/introvert feeling-intuitive inquiring type might be needed.

The other crucial factor is the modes of evidence 3 . The original work of Mason and Mitroff (1973)
is based on Churchman’s book from 1971: Design of Inquiring Systems. In this a Western way of
thinking (and feeling) on modes of evidence is used – based on five prominent Western
philosophers. Modes of evidence based on other philosophies like Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and
African etc. are advisable, but we will here base our reflections on Mason & Mitroff’s arguments.

Thus the Leibnizian and Lockian modes of evidence – based on logic and data respectively – can
be used in the quadrant 1. And again in at the other extreme in quadrant 4
Singerian/Churchmanian modes of evidence are of need. In between Kantian modes of evidence
(quadrant 2) and Hegelian (quadrant 3) is called upon.

3
A short description of each of these modes are given in appendix 1.

12/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
 Figure 4 - Expansion of inquiring systems in a knowledge based society

Social
Connectivit

Extrovert
Intuition
Feeling
Perception

Heterarchie
Introvert
Sensatio
n
Thinking Hierarchie

Informational
Connectivity

In fig. 4 it is the hypothesis that a general movement for the knowledge based society should be
to expand from the lower left corner towards the upper left corner – and – that these
movements might turn out to best facilitated by an ageing workforce.

This is of course only theoretical explorations, which when brought into practice (like in the two
pilots) will show, that participants have strong opinions on these issues – of they are brought to
the surface of using CWE/ICT and methodologies and social learning. Mostly they are not. The
most important finding is thus – as said in the evaluation on the methodologies 4 :

“ … the overall context was that the participants at the outset was not at all interested in any
theoretical issue on the matter of ‘ageing workforce and CWE/ICT’. They demanded a – more or
less – clear cut picture of the benefit they might get out of the project. Being part of an
experiment – even for real – was OK, but all took it to be a method/tool for their own specific
goal. Any vision on social and informational connectivity or move in the ‘Social Learning Space’
was very much influenced by the mental models that the participants had on the work-life
balance. So the attempt to use theory as a support for their overall move in work-life was taken
to be interesting even to the point of exciting – but most of all threatening.”

4
See delieverable D044. Informational
Connectivity

13/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
So the normative statement for the integrated roadmap is that any attempt to use ICT/CWE for
the benefit of an ageing work force must have a clear focus on the wishes for work-life balance
in retirement – or just before retirement. That asked, and hopefully with an attempted answer,
the next two questions are for any network, individual or organization:

What is your context: Where are you at the moment in the Social Learning Space? Where are you
in the Inquiring System? Where do you want to go?

Before we turn to movements in the social learning space, we must tell that we not take these
ten movements to be exhaustive, but again as an inspiration for finding one’s own place and
one’s own experiences. Thereby we do not make any suggestions and/or recommendations on
how to bring a movement in the social learning space about. There is a dilemma involved in
asking humans to change, for example their inquiring style and their preferred mode of
evidence. A challenge that is implicit in moves in the social learning space. Whether humans
want to embark on that journey at the present moment of their work-life balance is a question
we are not equipped to answer.

14/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
4. POTENTIAL MOVEMENTS IN THE SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE

Based on the practice and theory of Dave Snowden at the Cynefin Centre we reflect on our own
experiences in moving by the roadmaps. According to Snowden (2003) and Kurtz & Kurtz (2003)
we can identify at least ten movements:
• Collapse
• Imposition
• Incremental Improvement
• Social Modeling (Just-In-Time)
• Exploration
• Swarming
• Divergence-Convergence
• Entrainment breaking
• Liberation
• Immunization
In the Integrated Roadmap we show the dynamics of moving across boundaries, which requires
shifts among different models of understanding and interpretation as well as a different working
and leadership style. Understanding the differences among the different movements in the
roadmap changes the responses of participants to.

In general, one of the functions of the roadmaps is to increase the awareness of the upper right
quadrant as both a potential to create sustainable change and as a possibility for a CWE for 45+,
it is in this quadrant that strategic and innovative skills are much needed. These suggestions for
movements are described to make the upper right quadrant more accessible, yet accepting
deviances and set-back on the road. In a way the descriptions may also serve to set up warning
signs, when we move too far away from the general roadmap in fig. 3. Because each quadrant
has it own right and should be used according to the situation at hand.

More movements may be envisioned, but at this stage we only focus on those suggested by Kurtz
& Snowden (2003). This is done in order to reflect on the movements thus far in the eSangathan
project, but also for explicating possibilities for future movements. The description is based on
experiences from eSangathan as individuals trying to establish a network and employment
possibilities in the Öresund Pilot and employees in Mahindra & Mahindra aiming at transferring
knowledge to their company before retirement.

4.1 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HIERARCHY-UNSTRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL

BOUNDARY

15/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
Collapse

Collapse

This boundary is very strong, and trying to cross it too soon may cause a communication break
down. A collapse might happen, so that insecurity and uncertainty make the participants spread
into separate groups and/or leave the network/organization. So it is advisable not to advance
too fast and straightforward towards the goal in quadrant 4. On the other hand, if the situation
is too stable in quadrant 1 one might never get moving. So an advice could be to tell about the
possibilities in quadrant 4 and tell about the tools to be used in full flourish there, but only using
part of the tools. But most important is that moving towards informational connectivity is the
‘easiest’ as it does not question the social ‘chemistry’ of the participants.

The same arguments hold for the use of CWE. A choice of a proper CWE suited for the
participants hard- and soft skills may support the informational connectivity as they can
exchange data, ideas and experiences without having to get too involved in understanding the
relations in the group. Moving too fast into use of a CWE might make any network or
organization to collapse.

A dialogue on the twelve questions in Inquiring Systems and the Socratic Dialogue may support
this movement, yet it cannot be carried out unless participants open their hearts and mind
towards each other.

Imposition

Imposition

This movement goes from the unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/hierarchical. It

could be advisable if some of the participants feel that they are in a chaotic situation, or if some
actually feel that they have conquered the ICT/CWE world.

However the problem with this movement is that it can introduce a too rigid new stability that
in turn becomes more rigid until the movement can start again towards quadrant 4.

As Snowden and Kurtz wrote (2003, p. 476):

16/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
“A familiar example in organizational life is the cyclic reorganization of authority by industry,
then by function, then by industry, and so on in an endless cycle; or the fact that well-
intentioned revolutionaries sometimes put into place bureaucracies even more stifling than
those they overthrew. However, we do not mean to imply that all such transitions are
pathological. When order is well aligned with needs, it can bring needed savings and calm.
Anyone who has seen a talented teacher takes control of a frantic classroom through authority
and respect, or a policeman calm a panicked crowd, can understand the utility of imposed yet
well-placed order.”

4.2 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL

BOUNDARY

This is the boundary where the Leibnizian and Lockean approaches to knowledge are believed to
operate in order to change into a multiplicity of models in the Kantian mode of evidence. This
boundary is rather easy to cross as it involves finding out that solutions to everyday problems
and challenges can create new problems not foreseen in the formulation of the problem at first
and the solution later. Something was missing, some factor was changing. Even in a stable
context. Therefore this move also involves a change in imagining problems being operational,
tactical to being taken to be strategic and normative.

Incremental improvement
Incremental
Improvement

This is movement from the unstructured/hierarchical to the structured/hierarchical and back

again. It is the normal way of creating technological and economic growth. However, it can
become a movement between structured/hierarchical and unstructured/hierarchical that never
departs from well observed and documented reality.

Team Syntegrity may get this move running as it is build on the knowing of each participant and
can bring them into a search for what is knowable. However it presupposes time for reflection
and time social face-to-face meetings.

4.3 MOVEMENT AT THE UNSTRUCTURED/HIERARCHICAL-STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL

BOUNDARY

The boundary between the unstructured/hierarchical and structured/heterarchical can be a

fruitful one and in practice it complements the structured/hierarchical-
unstructured/hierarchical border as an engine of new ideas and social learnings. It is not as fluid

17/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
and permeable as the structured/hierarchical-unstructured/hierarchical boundary because such
transition must include translations in world views and habits.

Exploration

Exploration

Exploration is one-way movement from the unstructured/hierarchical and/or

structured/hierarchical to the structured/heterarchical. It is an opening up of possibilities by
reducing or removing central control without a total disruption of connections. Snowden & Kurz
writes on this movement (2003, p. 477):

“In organizations, exploration takes many forms, but trust is key in this movement. One is, in
effect, taking a risk by allowing constituent connections to form and strengthen at the expense
of central control, and that requires not only good planning and awareness of the “shadow” side
of the organization, but also careful (but unobtrusive) monitoring of the situation. Informal
communities, which may range from public to secret in their profile, provide a rich and fertile
source of knowledge and learning.”

The use of the Communication Platform and the Socratic Dialogue Group can be used to support
this movement depending on the participants’ organizational, cultural and social experiences.
But a crucial danger must be visualized, because this movement naturally will question the
network and/or organization in which one is earning one’s wages or getting one’s recognition.
Breaking down a hierarchy may be tempting, yet it is also threatening.

Social Modelling

Social
Modelling

In Snowden & Kurtz (2003) this movement is named “Just-In-Time” because they use a business
model that fits one of the most popular models of our time for industrial businesses. We prefer
to call it Social Modelling, as the movement include other models as well.

This is one-way movement from the structured/heterarchical to the unstructured/hierarchical.

This movement is often called exploitation in the complexity literature as it involves the
selective choice of well-documented stable social models from structured/heterarchical space

18/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
for the representation and use in solving unstructured problems in a hierarchical way, i.e. by
reducing complexity through the use of simplified models.

In fact it would attempt – like it often happens – to find out a new model outside the normal
hierarchy and apply it. Resistance towards change might occur, but it can be overcome by
Change Management.

A warning however may be important: This movement may call for using simplified models of
organization and/or handling social learning. Using a project management or business model
may be tempting. It is a genuine ‘reducing complexity’ exercise, but can back-fire into ‘events
for events’ own sake’ or using any new ICT/CWE gadget for impressive overruling of participants.

4.4 MOVEMENT AT THE STRUCTURED/HETERARCHICAL-CHAOTIC BOUNDARY

This boundary, like the structured/hierarchical-unstructured/hierarchical boundary, is fluid and

in fact difficult to delineate. It mirrors that crossing of the structured/hierarchical-
unstructured/hierarchical boundary in two ways: the first one is the engine for technological and
economic learning, and the other is the engine for organizational and social learning. So we can
use this border-crossing to enable the emergence of new social ideas that prove useful.

Swarming

Swarming

Swarming is the movement from the unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/heterarchical

and from there to the unstructured/hierarchical. This represents crossing the boundary between
“chaos” and “order”, which is a chiasm that is difficult to cross. The transition across the more
permeable boundary between unstructured/heterarchical and structured/heterarchical is more
manageable. A transition from the unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/heterarchical is
a matter of creating multiple attractive ideas, swarming points, around which un-order can
instantiate itself, whereas a transition from the unstructured/heterarchical to the
structured/hierarchical “only” requires a single strong attractive idea (a project is typical).

But if we are able to shift from unstructured/heterarchical to the structured/heterarchical, then

we have the possibilities a multiplicity of organizational, cultural and social learning designs.
Those that are found desirable are stabilized through a transfer to the exploitable domain of the
unstructured/hierarchical. Those that are undesirable are killed.

The first warning here is the management models or any other decision support model that may
cause the reduction of complexity in an organizational, cultural and social situation, where

19/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
complexity is exactly part of the problem. A deeper warning is that being – or at least
thinking/feeling to imagine to be able to act in a unstructured/heterarchical setting may close
one’s eyes for tradition and the iron law of oligarchy. We may be thinking and feeling that we
are saved in bringing around new technology, new worlds, new learning. Yet: is this learning
really warranted?

Again the Inquiring Systems Approach and the Socratic Dialogue could support managers and
researchers awareness on their own firm’s institutional beliefs – and idiosyncrasies.

Divergence-convergence

Divergence
Convergence

This is a movement from the structured/heterarchical to the unstructured/heterarchical and

back again.

Snowden & Kurtz writes (2003, p. 477):

“The active disruption of a complex system to precipitate its move to chaos is less of a change
than moving it to either of the ordered domains, and this is easier to manage across a permeable
boundary. In knowledge management, for example, informal communities that occupy the
structured/heterarchical domain are more resilient when asked to undergo radical disruption in
an learning program than the expert communities of the unstructured/hierarchical domain.
Small start-up companies handle disruption better than large bureaucratic ones, but even within
large bureaucratic organizations, there are small groups that can act in the role of start-ups, and
they can increase the adaptability of the organization.”

This movement may illustrate the danger in underestimating the participants. Some maybe -
most probably - are already on the move in their work-life towards getting others on board their
‘unstructured heterarchical’ imagined projects, ideas, visions – even to the point of being
missionaries. They – as we as partners – try to get other people on board out own dream of
‘making a difference’.

4.5 MOVEMENTS IN CHAOS

Thus far we have shown moves in a rather manageable/controllable environment. However,

most social learning cannot be created unless chaos has been part of the movement. So Snowden
& Kurtz (2003) use these first seven movements to tell about more or less secure roads to travel

20/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
in order to create social learning in work, life and use of CWE/ICT. Roads that might uproot the
system. They write (2003, p. 478):

“There are may be good reasons to move deliberately from order to chaos. There are times
when it is necessary to break rigid structures in precipitation of a natural collapse (as one
approaches the boundary), so that the transition can be managed more carefully; and there are
times when a strong disruption is the only mechanism that will break up a strong but unhealthy
stability. The last three movement types we will consider use the chaotic space for temporary
disruption of all connections (possibly within a restricted context) as a stimulant to new
growth.”

So we have also to look at possibilities for participants – and for us as managers – to know how to
create chaos; or break well-established patterns of understanding.

Entrainment breaking
Entrainment breaking is a movement from the unstructured/hierarchical to the
unstructured/heterarchical and from there onwards to the structured/heterarchical. Here we
move from the unstructured/hierarchical
Breaking to unstructured/heterarchical and thus stimulate the
Entrainment

creation of new complex systems as the system rebounds into the structured/heterarchical
domain.

Snowden & Kurz write on this movement (2003, p.478):

“This is a common approach to disrupt the entrained thinking of experts who, in our experience,
tend to be the most conservative when it comes to radical new thinking. The move to complex
[structured/heterarchical] space is not radical enough to disrupt those patterns; we need to
challenge at a more basic level the current assumptions of order. By using the
structured/heterarchical space as a staging post, we create a more fertile space of interactions
from which we can select stabilization points for the movement to the
unstructured/hierarchical. A knowledge management example is the creation of formal
communities by clustering and swarming informal activities from existing trusted relationships.”

Entrainment is part of our defences against being intimidated and invaded by opinions and
forceful aims by others to do, what not necessarily is one’s own cause in life. Any of the
methodologies and any of the tools in our attempt to get a so-called ageing workforce on board
ICT/CWE both as a proper workforce and as human beings aiming at understanding and using
ICT/CWE, can be taken to bring down these defences. We – of course – need good reasons for
this attack on peoples defences. Again dialogue and trust are of absolute necessity.

Liberation

Liberation

21/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
Liberation (or empowerment as many researchers would say) is a movement from the
structured/hierarchical to the structured/heterarchical and from there to the
unstructured/hierarchical.

Snowden & Kurz write on this movement (2003, p. 479):

“Organizations tend to assume that they can design the nature of new systems. For example, an
organization that needs new expertise in an area might commission a university to carry out a
study, recruit specialist staff, or identify individuals within the organization and assign them
new responsibilities. This is a successful and effective strategy when the conditions are suitable
for ordered approaches. However, if the situation is uncertain, it is more useful to shift the
problem from the domain of the known [structured/hierarchical] to the knowable
[structured/heterarchical]. Organizations need to increase both internal and external levels of
contact to the point where new patterns can emerge. Boisot [in “Information Space” (1995) and
Knowledge Assets (1998)] makes the point that companies need to use both hoarding strategies,
in which they place defensive barriers around what they know and focus on exploitation, and
sharing strategies, where knowledge is shared within and outside the organization with the
intent of increasing the volume of opportunities, with the strategic advantage shifting to speed
of exploitation of knowledge.”

This movement may be taken to be the most important for anybody trying to support other
people’s use of new tools and methodologies: Listen! Listen to the feeling needs of others, don’t
administer, try to minister.

Immunization

Immunization

Immunization aims at moving from the structured/hierarchical to the

unstructured/heterarchical, temporarily. This can be taken to be an experiment; a smaller
“visit” to chaos in order to shake up “the way things are” in such a way, that one is forced to
reflect. However the visit will be short enough so that it will not destabilize the entire system
(or project). This serves two purposes, Snowden & Kurtz write (2003, p. 479):

“First, it inures people to the devastating force of chaos so that they will be better prepared to
face those forces in the future. A perfect example: it is said that the great director Buster
Keaton was able to craft his death-defying stunts (such as a house falling around him, a rescue
from a drenching waterfall, amazing pratfalls, and so on) because as a toddler he was lifted out
of bed by a tornado and set down unhurt in the street. Second, immunization brings new
perspectives, which cause radical disruptions in stable patterns of thought and lead to new

22/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
complex patterns. Examples of such events are scattered throughout literature, in the accident
that changes a politician's career, or the chance encounter that causes a lonely woman's life to
fill up with new meaning, or in many other kinds of radical departures that make everything on
which one had relied seem meaningless and restricting.

Metaphors and Narratives are particularly useful agents of immunization because they allow
conversation about painful things, enable disruptive and lateral thinking, prevent entrainment of
attitudes, and clear out the cobwebs of stagnant ways.”

An important lesson is needed here. Stories and biographies by participants can be examples of
longings – not for chaos – but for imaging other ways of acting, thinking and feeling; in fact for
social learning. So narratives and metaphors may inspire, may express hopes and trust; yet may
have to be carefully brought back to reality.

4.6 USE OF MOVEMENTS IN SOCIAL LEARNING SPACE IN PRACTICE

The use of these ten boundary transitions rely on narratives in networks, organizations or
projects. As we aim for social learning, employment and a work-life balance for an ageing
workforce, narratives of the changes taking place, participants’ own generative thematic
universe and changes taking place in the minds of the participants are both at the utmost
important.

Metaphors and narratives may be saved and used to generate a shared language about change in
both themes and minds. They should not, however, be allowed to stabilize into expectations;
they must remain fluid to be useful.

So it is a good idea to collect experiences, narratives, stories and reflections based on potential
movements by the roadmaps. In that way we get qualitative material along with the more
formal evaluations on the roadmaps. In short: a social learning curve.

23/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
5. CONCLUSION

The integrated roadmap consists of three main steps:

• First a positioning in the social learning space.
• Second a positioning in the inquiring system framework on factors in a CWE.
• Third a dialogue and reflection and imagination among participants on where – and
why - they want to move from here. As a help movements in the social learning space
along with potential CWE/ICT are offered.

By applying the tools and methodologies the participants can move freely in different directions,
yet they can identify and read the roadmap of the landscape in such a way that they can move
towards the ideal of creating social learning in a heterarchical context and handling
unstructured, wicked problems.

24/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
6. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

- Boisot, M. (1998): Knowledge Assets, Oxford University Press

- Churchman, C.W (1971): The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books
- Kurtz, C.F. & Snowden, D. (2003): The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex
andcomplicated world, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3
- Mason, I.& Mitroff (1973): A program for research on management information
systems,Management Science 19 (5).
- Snowden, D. (2002): Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, No. 2
- Spivack, Novo: New Version of My "Metaweb" Graph -- The Future of the Net, Blog April 21,
2005

See also the eSangathan library.

25/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
 Appendix - Modes of Generating Evidence
This appendix is based on Courtney, James F., Croasdell, David T. & Paradice, David B.:
Inquiring Organizations. Australian Journal of Information Systems, Number 1, September 1998.
We have taken the words from the article as they give a clear, comprehensive and concise
picture of the meaning of these different modes of generating evidence. We are aware, that
they are based on Western philosophers only. But we hope that the reader may generate other
modes of evidence based on other paradigms.

The Lockian Inquirer

Inquiring systems based on Lockian reasoning are experimental and consensual. Empirical
information, gathered from external observations, is used inductively to build a representation
of the world. Elementary sense observations form the input to the Lockian inquirer which has a
basic set of labels (or properties) which it assigns to the inputs. The Lockian system is also
capable of observing its own process by means of "reflection" and backwards tracing of labels to
the most elementary labels. Agreement on the labels by the Lockian community is the guarantor
of the system.

The Leibnizian Inquirer

A Leibnizian inquiring system is a closed system with a set of built-in elementary axioms that are
used along with formal logic to generate more general fact nets or tautologies. The fact nets are
created by identifying hypotheses, each new hypothesis being tested to ensure that it could be
derived from, and is consistent with, the basic axioms. Once so verified, the hypothesis becomes
a new fact within the system. The guarantor of the system is the internal consistency and
comprehensiveness of the generated facts.

The Kantian Inquirer

The Kantian system is a mixture of the Leibnitzian and Lockian approaches in the sense that it
contains both theoretical and empirical components. The empirical component is capable of
receiving inputs, so the system is open. It generates hypotheses on the basis of inputs received.
Perhaps the most unique feature of Kantian systems is that the theoretical component allows an
input to be subjected to different interpretations. This occurs because the Kantian theoretical
component maintains alternative models of the world (alternative world views). Representations
and interpretations are based on causal connections maintained in the models. The theoretical
component contains a model building constituent, which constructs Leibnizian fact nets. It tests
the alternatives by determining the best "fit" for the data, and the guarantor in this approach is
the degree of model/data agreement. The use of alternative models permits, for example, one
piece of economic data to be interpreted differently by different econometric models (e.g.,
competing models proposed by different political parties). Additionally, an "executive routine"
turns the Kantian models on and off and can examine their outputs in terms of the degree of
satisfaction with their interpretations. Thus, if a model is not producing satisfactory results it
can be turned off, while those which are more successful proceed.

26/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved
The Hegelian Inquirer
Hegelian systems function on the premise that greater enlightenment results from the conflict of
ideas. The Hegelian dialectic is comprised of three major players. The first player begins the
dialectic with a strong conviction about a fundamental thesis. This player or subject, besides
holding a strong belief in the thesis, constructs a view of the world in such a way that
information, when interpreted through this world view, maximizes support for the thesis. The
second player is an observer of the first subject. The observer generates an opposing conviction
to the original thesis. In fact, the observer is "passionately dedicated to destruction of the first
subject's conviction" (Churchman, 1971, p. 173). The final player in the Hegelian dialectic is a
"bigger" mind and an opposition to the conflict between the thesis and the antithesis. This
"bigger" mind synthesizes a new (larger) view of the world which absorbs the thesis/antithesis
conflict. Synthesis generated by the objective "bigger" mind acts as guarantor of the system.
Objectivity is based on a kind of interconnection of observers (Churchman, 1971, p. 149). They
promise that "the movement from thesis-antithesis to synthesis is a soaring to greater heights, to
self-awareness, more completeness, betterment, progress" (Churchman, 1971, p. 186).

The Singerian Inquirer

Two basic premises guide Singerian inquiry (Churchman, 1971, pp. 189-191). The first premise
establishes a system of measures that specify steps to be followed in resolving disagreements
among members of a community. Measures can be transformed and compared where
appropriate. The measure of performance is the degree to which differences among group
member's opinions can be resolved by the measuring system. A key feature of the measuring
system is its ability to replicate its results to ensure consistency.
The second principle guiding Singerian inquiry is the strategy of agreement (p. 199).
Disagreement may occur for various reasons, including the different training and background of
observers and inadequate explanatory models. When models fail to explain a phenomenon, new
variables and laws are "swept in" to provide guidance and overcome inconsistencies. Yet,
disagreement is encouraged in Singerian inquiry. It is through disagreement that world views
come to be improved. Complacency is avoided by continuously challenging system knowledge.
Singerian inquiry provides the capability to choose among a system of measures to create insight
and build knowledge. A simplistic optimism drives the community toward continuous
improvement of measures. However, the generation of knowledge can move the community
away from reality and towards its own form of illusion if not carefully monitored.

27/27
© eSangathan Consortium 2008 All rights reserved