Final Activity Report Summary - LEARNINGFUL WORK (Learningful work - increasing employees' learning opportunities' at work. An international comparison)
The research project has focused on individual and collective workplace learning. The aim has been to distinguish, asses, and promote work and organisational characteristics in the contemporary industrial work supporting workplace learning both at the individual and collective levels. The research has had an international approach; workplace learning has been studied in three case companies in Finland and one case company in Sweden, and the research findings have been compared with the corresponding data available from Germany. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods have been used. The international comparisons have been made based on standardised, quantitatively recorded interview-observations in the three countries and also based on questionnaire data. Qualitative interviews have been carried out in the Finnish and Swedish case studies to gather data on employees' and managers' experiences and views on workplace learning.
The research indicates that while individual level workplace learning is supported in the Finnish and Swedish case companies, there are several boundaries for collective learning. Individual workplace learning is supported by employees' work in semi-autonomous machine groups. Employees carry out all mental and manual tasks on their machines, and they also plan and carry out the production orders and asses the quality of products. These kinds of work contents support individual level learning. Individual level learning does not always have opportunities to transcend to broader collective and organisational learning. Firstly, the forums for sharing one's ideas and interpreting them with others are often missing; employees do not have chances to discuss the daily events in their work or new ideas that have emerged at the individual or shift group level. Secondly, the employees have opportunities to influence their daily work, but fewer influence opportunities when it comes to "framework conditions" regulating the work processes (e.g. the decisions on how raw material is processed, the shape of the machinery, etc.). The ideas of single employees do not always have possibilities to initiate collective learning processes.
The most important differences between the three countries relate to participation and collaboration; in general, the Finnish and Swedish employees have more opportunities for daily work related participation and collaboration than their German colleagues. However, above it was noted that the Finnish and Swedish case companies could still improve their employees' participation and collaboration opportunities by extending participation to the "framework conditions" of work and by creating forums for work related dialogues. The advantage of using the research methodology with both quantitative observations and qualitative interviews is demonstrated here. The standardised observation-interview method applied measures the extent of the action opportunities within daily work processes while, with the qualitative interviews, it was also possible to access the factors relating to the "framework conditions" of work processes and to collective learning processes as well. The qualitative interviews indicate that the participation and collaboration opportunities exist, but fall short when it comes to influencing the change and development in the whole work process. This has profound implications for the operational practice in the contemporary industrial companies: if the development so far has created learning conductive work at the individual level, the next step is obviously to extend participation and collaboration opportunities to overall work system development and to secure collective learning.
The research indicates that while individual level workplace learning is supported in the Finnish and Swedish case companies, there are several boundaries for collective learning. Individual workplace learning is supported by employees' work in semi-autonomous machine groups. Employees carry out all mental and manual tasks on their machines, and they also plan and carry out the production orders and asses the quality of products. These kinds of work contents support individual level learning. Individual level learning does not always have opportunities to transcend to broader collective and organisational learning. Firstly, the forums for sharing one's ideas and interpreting them with others are often missing; employees do not have chances to discuss the daily events in their work or new ideas that have emerged at the individual or shift group level. Secondly, the employees have opportunities to influence their daily work, but fewer influence opportunities when it comes to "framework conditions" regulating the work processes (e.g. the decisions on how raw material is processed, the shape of the machinery, etc.). The ideas of single employees do not always have possibilities to initiate collective learning processes.
The most important differences between the three countries relate to participation and collaboration; in general, the Finnish and Swedish employees have more opportunities for daily work related participation and collaboration than their German colleagues. However, above it was noted that the Finnish and Swedish case companies could still improve their employees' participation and collaboration opportunities by extending participation to the "framework conditions" of work and by creating forums for work related dialogues. The advantage of using the research methodology with both quantitative observations and qualitative interviews is demonstrated here. The standardised observation-interview method applied measures the extent of the action opportunities within daily work processes while, with the qualitative interviews, it was also possible to access the factors relating to the "framework conditions" of work processes and to collective learning processes as well. The qualitative interviews indicate that the participation and collaboration opportunities exist, but fall short when it comes to influencing the change and development in the whole work process. This has profound implications for the operational practice in the contemporary industrial companies: if the development so far has created learning conductive work at the individual level, the next step is obviously to extend participation and collaboration opportunities to overall work system development and to secure collective learning.