Observations on the three historically oriented theories

My conclusion in Chapter two was that theories of organizational learning do not provide concepts for understanding the historical changes in work- related learning. It could be maintained, however, that the connection between history and such theories works the other way: historical changes explain their emergence and content.

The three historically oriented theories presented in this chapter conceptualize current changes in work and learning from different points of view. Freeman and Louçã’s theory of long waves concerns macro changes in the world economy and techno-economic paradigms Adler’s theory of ”the zig-zag movement of manage-ment doctrines’ relates the transformations of managemanage-ment doctrines to long waves of economic growth, and Victor and Boynton’s theory bridges these two perspec-tives by providing concepts for describing qualitative changes in production logic.

Discussion of organizational learning started at the time when the long up-swing of the motorization cycle turned downwards. It has, nevertheless, been dominated by theories that emphasize commitment rather than control, and they all clearly resonate the specifi c managerial problems of their time. Argyris and Schön’s theory contributes in addressing problems of commitment, as does Lave and Wenger’s theory in seeking the solution in craft work. The theory developed by March and Olsen is applicable in the bureaucratic context of mass production, while Nonaka and Tackeuchi address the specifi c challenges inherent in the con-tinuous innovation of the techno-economic paradigm of the ICT- based network economy. In what follows I will summarize the ways in which historically oriented theories conceptualize and elaborate on the understanding they promote in terms of learning in and for production.

According to Freeman and Louçã, the principles and concrete manifestations of the new budding paradigm are based on corporate competition in global mar-kets, in which fi nancial markets have gained in importance. The entire production process is based more and more on the continuous development of innovations (Freeman & Louçã, 2001, p. 302), and their new role in business is reshaping prod-ucts and production methods. Higher development costs are forcing companies to specialize. On the other hand, the use of information networks facilitates collabo-ration between these specialized bodies. End products are manufactured by fl ex-ibly combining the know-how and products of several organizations in so-called virtual companies (Piore & Sabel, 1984; Vikström et al., 1994; Ollus, 1998).

Information technology makes the mass customization of products and ser-vices possible. Mass products and standard serser-vices remain, but they are increas-ingly only components in a more comprehensive service, which may also include co-confi guration between producer and customer. Innovations may lead not only to changes in the production process but also to the renewal of entire busi-ness concepts (Burgelman & Sayles, 1988). We have good reason to assume that co-confi guration and mass customization are forms of work that are genuinely based on the information-technological network economy. Mass customization could be interpreted as a transitional form of work between the techno-economic paradigm of mass production and the ICT-type of network economy comprising both motorization and computerization. It is still based on the idea of the cheap mass product, but product variation is carried to the extreme. Victor and Boynton claim, however, that this is possible only with the help of computers and computer programs.

The dominating forms of work during the motorization period were mass pro-duction and the fl exible propro-duction that is based on the continuous improvement of processes. Both are relatively well-established historical types of production that have already reached their mature period of development. Flexible production be-gan to spread signifi cantly after the oil crisis and, the fact that Japanese plants had the highest productivity numbers in the world during the down-swing of the motorization wave was challenged the mass-production paradigm. The emerging new forms of work that are gaining ground in the upswing that started in 1990 are mass customization and co-confi guration.

As Adler shows, the mass-production model was already being questioned in the early 1920s by the human-relations school. One consequence of this move-ment was Socio-Technical Systems Design (STSD), which spread worldwide with the beginning of the down-swing in the motorization wave produced by the oil crises at the turn of the 1960s and 1970s (van Einjatten, 1993; Julkunen, 1987;

Kelly, 1982). The concrete innovations that STSD brought included semi-autono-mous work groups and experiments in automobile plants to remove the assembly

The complexity of production organizations

Electrification Motorization Computerization

1900 1930 1973 1990 Craft

Mass production

Continuous improvement, STSD

Mass customization

Co-configuration

line entirely and replace it with parallel work stations. It has spread as a develop-mental method rather than as an actual type of production.

Figure 3.3 The historical background and the current transformation from motorization to computerization

The research carried out within the International Motor Vehicle Project (Womack, Jones & Roos, 1990, p. 92) on global automobile production defi ned mass produc-tion, lean producproduc-tion, and socio-technical production as the main alternatives in organizing automibile manufacture. One could say that mass production, fl exible production and socio-technical production have been the main forms of produc-tion mastery during the motorizaproduc-tion wave of economic development (Alasoini, et al., 1994; Berggren, 1990; Naschold et al., 1993, Adler & Cole, 1994; Cole, 1989).

They are based on different methods of securing mastery and also rely on different forms of learning in and for production: they thus provide the historical basis for the emerging new forms.

According to Freeman and Louçã, processes of learning are pivotal in the nomic-growth interplay between the development of social, technical and eco-nomic innovations that produce new techno-ecoeco-nomic paradigms. Adler’s analy-sis shows that the contradictory needs of commitment and control, and ways of meeting them, affect forms of learning in and for production. Victor and

Boyn-ton point out that specifi c forms of learning are necessary for mastering different types of work (foundation learning), and that the preconditions for the necessary learning for the next type of work develop within the previous type (additional learning). They characterized the different processes of learning necessary in each transformation of one specifi c type of work. According to their theory, learning in and for production is a cumulative process of building on and further developing existing knowledge, capabilities and structures. Individual organizations recapitu-late in a condensed form the developmental phases of production logic that have marked the general historical development of forms of production.

Theories of organizational learning provide general, ahistorical explanations that, in terms of historical theories, appear to stem partly from historical phases.

These generalizations seem not to be general from a historical perspective. On the other hand, historically oriented theories assume that learning changes in differ-ent phases, but do not explicate any common or general typical form of learning in and for production. This raises the methodological question of how to research the phenomenon, which I will seek to answer in the following chapter.

4 Toward historical-genetic method