به سوی یک سازمان شبکه ای: سرمایه انسانی، سازگاری و قابلیت استفاده در سیستم های آموزش الکترونیکی

In all parts of organisations there flourish developments of different new subsystems in areas of knowledge and learning. Over recent decades, new systems for classification of jobs have emerged both at the level of organisations and at a macro-labour market level. Recent developments in job evaluation systems make it possible to cope with the new demands for equity at work (between, for example, genders, races, physical abilities). Other systems have emerged to describe job requirements in terms of skills, knowledge and competence. Systems for learning at work and web-based learning have created a demand for new ways to classify and to understand the process of learning. Often these new systems have been taken from other areas of the organisation not directly concerned with facilitating workplace learning. All these new systems are of course closely interrelated but, in most organisations, a major problem is the severe lack of cohesion and compatibility between the different subsystems. The aim of this paper is to propose a basis for how different human resource systems can be integrated into the business development of an organisation. We discuss this problem and develop proposals alternative to integrated macro-systems. A key element in our proposition is a structure for classification of knowledge and skill to be used in all parts of the process. This structure should be used as an added dimension or an overlay on all other subsystems of the total process. This will facilitate a continued use of all existing systems within different organisations. We develop Burge's (personal communication) model for learning to show that learning is not a successive linear process, but rather an iterative process. In this way we emphasise the need for greater involvement of learners in the development of learning systems towards increased usability in a networked system. This paper is divided into two parts which are closely related. The first part gives an overview of the lack of compatibility between the different subsystems. In this first part we note two paradoxes which impact learning and for which we propose solutions. The second part deals with ‘usability’ aspects of these competency-related systems; in particular, usability in e-learning systems. In this second part we describe an example of a new organisational structure. We conclude by discussing four key concepts that are necessary conditions for organisations to address when developing their human capital. Establishing these conditions helps ensure compatibility and usability in e-learning systems.

In this article we have discussed how more effective structures create a form of knowledge architecture in a company so that skill, knowledge and learning can be integrated in a natural way with business development. At the same time, we have stressed that concepts affecting usability should be well internalised in all parts of the company. It is especially important that the usability aspects become prominent in the company's own internal systems. It is only then that usability will become a meaningful concept in the development of external business. However, in the new economy the pace of change is extremely rapid and will undoubtedly accelerate. It can therefore be seen as an almost hopeless task to use any form of systematic approach to develop the human capital in harmony with the development of the business. In order to succeed in this effort, there are four key concepts which must be grasped: 1. The first deals with creating a culture of decentralisation where there is harmony between responsibility and formal authority (formal delegation). This requires that there be a clear ethic which deals with, among other things, empowerment, personal individual authority and a mutual acceptance of each other by leaders and staff. 2. It is important to understand that this is not just a question of competence development and of creating formal learning processes which lead to increased qualifications and skill levels. This is important, and is one of the reasons why there is a need for more e-learning in the company and the organisation and more informal and ad hoc ways of learning, including time for reflection and acknowledgement of tacit knowledge. 3. E-learning should also be well-integrated into production and business development. But there must also be a level of realism in the demands made of staff. Neither customers nor staff members can cope with the continually increasing demands for new learning and new abilities and skills. Instead, organisations must use creativity and inventive abilities to create new solutions which are just as productive, interesting and exciting as those used by competitors. 4. But the alternatives should be easier to use and be better matched to a human way of functioning; they should bring out and involve playfulness and a striving after pleasure. It is counterproductive to be constantly demanding that people should be adapted to the new business solutions and the new technical solutions. Constant repetition of the same message dilutes its potency. On the contrary, organisations should ensure that new business ideas and new technologies have their basis in a humanistic and a people-oriented tradition. In other words, we are talking of a form of competence ergonomics, or, as is increasingly talked of today, ‘pleasure ergonomics’ in relation to business development (Ivergård, 2000c). Earlier in our paper we identified two paradoxes. The first, employees’ time at work (for work task execution towards productive outputs), infringed on the time needed to be off work for the purposes of work-related learning. Time allocated to learning reduced time available for work. How then to decide the trade-off between time for learning and time for work production? We described a solution which involves IT based (e-learning). The greater flexibility that this would bring would help close the gap between learning and work; the two facets of workplace life would have a higher level of symbiosis. To this end we suggested shifting the balance away from operational learning (learning to use an e-learning course) in favour of content learning (learning new knowledge, skills and competencies for work). The effectiveness of the e-learning application can be judged by comparing this balance of learning activity. In the second paradox we noted that the nature of organisational structures and administrative systems act to inhibit personnel development rather than supporting this. We recommend the design of dynamic processes of personnel development aimed at a pro-active capability that can respond to changes in the business environment. This is likely to involve uncoupling certain current robust processes intended to provide consistency to organisational routines. In sum, our proposals advocate closer relationships between the different new subsystems within organisations. Care should be taken to ensure that subsystems replicated from other areas of the organisation are redesigned to give mutual cohesion and compatibility. We reiterate that human resource systems are central to an organisation's business development and its systems of personnel development. A key element is a means for classification of knowledge and skill. This should be used as an added dimension to the total process. Learning is an iterative process. We emphasise the importance of greater involvement of learners in the development of learning systems towards increased usability in a networked system.