تسهیل تولید علم مشارکتی آینده گرا با استفاده از روش های هنری نوآوری سازمانی : تجارب از شرکت پردازش چوب فنلاندی

In this study, methods of artistic mediation are linked to organizational innovation via the concept of knowledge creation. An extended SECI (Socialization–Externalization–Combination–Internalization) model of knowledge creation is linked to methods of artistic mediation by including appropriate actions for the different bas. This results in a framework for processing innovation in organizational settings in a new way. In light of a company case we discuss how different modes of knowledge may be created and how that may be aided with artistic mediation. We use a specific artistic orientation of action research, research-based theatre (RBT); a research strategy that includes theatre as a way to conduct scholarly research methods. This novel framework is reflected on using empirical data collected during an organizational development process in a large Finnish company. Interest has been growing among researchers and developers to find new kinds of approaches to organizational innovation. Using different kinds of artistic methods has opened up interesting possibilities, but there is still a great need for concrete examples of how artistic methods are used in ‘real life situations’ to facilitate collaborative knowledge creation. This study demonstrates one concrete example from a very traditional industrial sector–mechanical wood-processing.

In this study, methods of artistic mediation are linked to innovation and organizational development via the concept of knowledge creation. We first discuss an extended SECI model of knowledge creation, and then link that model to methods of artistic mediation – i.e., research-based theatre (RBT). This results in a framework for processing innovation in organizational settings in a new way. In light of a practical company case we discuss how knowledge may be created, focusing particularly on different modes of knowledge, and how that may be aided in practice with artistic mediation. 1.1. Different forms of knowledge and evolution of knowledge creation thinking Organizations’ success and survival are widely seen to depend on their capability to create new knowledge and then innovations. Collective learning processes are also emphasized in generating innovations. In order to foster innovations and strengthen their effectiveness, it becomes important to integrate different types of knowledge, competences and experiences into a cooperative perspective [1]. All this stresses the importance of knowledge creation and management at the organizational level – and nowadays also at the network level [6] and [7]. Knowledge used in innovation processes can be categorized in several ways. Perhaps the most often used one is the categorization into explicit and tacit knowledge, the former relating to knowledge expressed as words or numbers, being thus codified and well defined, and the latter expressed as insights being thus highly personal and hard to formalize (and transfer) [5] and [6]. This kind of a dichotomization is also often criticized. For example, Howells [2], citing Polanyi, strongly criticized the much-used dichotomy between tacit and explicit knowledge. Knowledge, according to him, can be understood rather as a continuum between wholly explicit knowledge and wholly tacit knowledge, and that tacit knowledge, situation and locational context play a significant role in the use and diffusion of codified knowledge. Thus, according to Howells, although codified, explicit knowledge may be more ubiquitous and accessible, its interpretation and assimilation are still influenced by situational factors. Scharmer [3] introduced the concept of “self-transcending knowledge”. It can be described as tacit knowledge prior to its embodiment. Such knowledge implies the ability to sense the presence of potential, to see what does not yet exist. Scharmer elaborated the concept with Michelangelo's words about his famous sculpture: “David was already in the stone. I just took away everything that wasn’t David”. The ability to see a David where others just see rock is the essence of self-transcending knowledge [3]. Scharmer also used the iceberg metaphor (see Fig. 1) to illustrate the essence of the three types of knowledge. Above the waterline is explicit knowledge that is least difficult to disseminate and distribute. Below the waterline are the two types of tacit knowledge: first, below the waterline, but still visible is tacit embodied knowledge, and below that, somewhere in the darkness, without a seeable form is self-transcending knowledge. Both these forms of tacit knowledge are very difficult to disseminate and transfer from one part of the organization to another.Once the importance of self-transcending and tacit knowledge is realized, one begins to think about innovation in a wholly new way. Unlike information, knowledge is about commitment and beliefs. It is a function of a particular stance, perspective or intention, and creation of new knowledge is as much about ideals as it is about ideas – and that fact fuels innovation [4]. Scharmer [3] also described the historical evolution of the discussion of knowledge creation and management. During phase I, the primary focus was on explicit knowledge. Knowledge management revolved around information technology solutions, and it was seen as the processing of information. During phase II, the process of knowledge creation took precedence. Knowledge was conceived of as tacit and as a process (not a thing). Finally, during phase III, attention is focused on the thought conditions that allow processes and tacit knowledge to evolve in the first place. This phase III allows also for a wider view of innovation itself as well as novel methods of knowledge creation focused on people's thought conditions. Different types of knowledge are often discussed in research, but the discussion mainly concentrates on explicit knowledge and (embodied) tacit knowledge. For example, Nonaka and Takeuchi's SECI model of knowledge creation [5] did not include self-transcending knowledge (the concept was however introduced only later). Instead they focused on the creation of tacit and explicit knowledge as well as on the interaction between explicit and tacit knowledge in collective learning. In their four-phase model, a collective learning process increases knowledge, and knowledge conversion takes place in certain forums or arenas (ba in Japanese) that may be concrete or virtual places. The model had the aim of causing a learning spiral where a collective learning process increases knowledge in the network. Different kinds of knowledge processes need different kinds of bas. Harmaakorpi and Melkas [6] and Uotila et al. [7] later on incorporated self-transcending knowledge into an extended SECI/ba model (the ‘rye-bread model’) (see Fig. 2). The model describes the process of how knowledge and understanding are produced and convertedThe rye-bread model extends the original model of SECI/ba by adding two new phases of knowledge1 conversion: • conversion of self-transcending knowledge to tacit knowledge • vice versa, conversion of tacit knowledge to self-transcending knowledge. These processes are both collective and individual. They take place in two bas: • ‘Imagination ba’: visualization (from self-transcending to tacit); self-transcending knowledge is embodied from the abstract to visions, feelings, mental models, etc. • ‘Futurizing ba’: potentialization (from tacit to self-transcending); tacit knowledge is disembodied and forms the basis for sensing the future potentials and seeing what does not yet exist. This model is a conceptual description of how to promote collective learning and innovativeness by means of collaborative knowledge creation. In our current study, this model is turned into a concrete framework by including appropriate actions for the different bas – that is, methods of artistic mediation developed and applied at the case company (and elsewhere) in Finland. 1.2. Participation and emerging knowing True acknowledgement of the three forms of knowledge (self-transcending, tacit and explicit) presented earlier also challenges the traditional approaches to innovation. Inclusion of all the three forms of knowledge into an innovation process necessitates the development of a process that is participatory, action-oriented and during which issues can be dealt with together in a safe environment and in a bottom-up style – giving time not only to imagination but sometimes also to odysseys and lingering. The need to linger highlights multi-temporal elements in knowledge creation with implications also for education in particular (cf. [31] and [32]) – and social evolution in general. This flexible temporality is still a relatively weak signal, but an important issue that is gradually understood better and has a lot of future potential (e.g., [33]). Lingering may also be associated with presencing [34], a holistic way of being present; the blending of sensing and presence that Scharmer finds crucial in leadership and management praxis. Knowledge creation processes like these cannot be forced into the format of basic innovation management procedures (i.e., defining a problem, generating possible solutions, testing them, selecting and implementing the best available one, and measuring it). The three forms of knowledge necessitate a fundamentally different kind of knowledge creation process to take place; a creative process that is focused on finding and creating, aiming to transform something not yet existing into existing, and to give it a figure or a voice. It is about finding possible worlds and building up a community, where workers can be (active) actors, who are creating a meaning together. Even though this process cannot be controlled from the outside, it is still possible to facilitate it and create suitable circumstances for the creation of the necessary bas. It calls for participation; the starting point being that the surrounding world, common experiences, values, beliefs and interests can be shared, pondered, processed with means of participatory theatrical methods. The impulse for change (and selection of a topic or theme) comes from everyday life, from surrounding social reality and a participant's own “field of meanings” [8] and [9]. Giving a voice to something that has been silent before necessitates dialogue and aesthetic participation. Aesthetic participation means creating a collaborative process or procedure, where actors/participants can imagine, wonder and criticize the world, their own activities in a work community, its structures, roles and power relations [35]. The Brazilian artist Augusto Boal's [8], [9], [10] and [11] participatory theatre practice in a field of change and development is one of the significant branches of applied drama and theatre that examines social reality. Boal [8] created theatrical techniques whereby participants form a path to interact, learn collectively and build trustful relationships in order to explore and change the oppressive structures of everyday life. Storytelling is a strategy to make sense of these socially constructed structures. Also, when the participants share their stories and collectively create meanings, they co-create a dialogue [12]. Boal's [10] theatre techniques represent the door to sense-making.2 For over 40 years, Boal's theatre has addressed personal, political and community level problems as well as questions about identity, race, gender, human rights and political processes in communities in Latin America, Africa and Europe [13] and [14]. This research is also related to discussion of futures and foresight approaches to innovation through Scharmer's Theory U and presencing [34]. The methods utilized in this study can thus be located within the disciplinary canon of futures research methods. Although our methods originate from a different tradition, like in Theory U, we are dealing with change management, processes of inner knowing and social innovation that facilitate transformation of observations into intuitions and judgements about the present state of an organization and decisions about the future.

Typical for the fuzzy front-end phase of an innovation process are things like chaos, openness, interpretation, creativity, ‘degrees of freedom’, allowing, small costs, etc. On the other hand, typical for the back-end phase of an innovation process are things like control, closeness, analyzing, limitations, increased costs, etc. This again reflects the need for different kinds of ‘management logics’ in different phases of innovation processes. This study suggests that a fundamental part of processing innovation in organizational settings is emerging self-organizing between employees and managers, whereby ‘managing’ knowledge actually means that organizational actors organize collective reflection and sense-making. We propose that in the fuzzy front-end of innovation processes the management logic calls for leadership type of management with a focus on inspiring people and their creativity, while in the back-end, the more traditional type of management with a focus on issues, deadlines, resources, results, etc., is called for. In many companies, the focus of managing innovation processes is either on the front-end or back-end phase, but the true challenge lies in adjusting the management logic according to the innovation process to be able to manage the whole process – not just some fragmented part(s) of it. Self-transcending knowledge [3] was incorporated a few years ago into an extended SECI/ba (the ‘rye-bread’) model by adding two phases of knowledge conversion [6] and [7]: (i) conversion of self-transcending knowledge to tacit knowledge (imagination ba), and (ii) conversion of tacit knowledge to self-transcending knowledge (futurizing ba). In both these bas, knowledge sharing processes are related to embodied issues, intuitive and unarticulated ones that are said to be impossible – or at least infinitely challenging – to share through traditional knowledge creation practices. Therefore, methods of artistic mediation are linked to knowledge creation in this study. In Boal's [10] theatre (image theatre technique), for instance, the human body is used as a tool for representing life experiences, attitudes, feelings, behaviour, ideas, patterns of power relationships, and social relations. Participants’ demonstrations are symbolic images of something that has happened, or could happen, in real life. At the same time, when people tell stories and interpret bodily images, they reconstruct and reflect their own views on the issue in question. According to Boal [9], the focus of drama is always a dialogue where people seek to find out something unknown through action. Through the process of research-based theatre, RBT, the focus of this study, different types of methods of artistic mediation are utilized so that not only explicit and codified knowledge, but also embodied and not yet embodied tacit knowledge (self-transcending knowledge) are taken into account. Participants open up the procedures related to their own work and organizational practices. At the case company, Whitewater Corporation, employees and managers were confused in the midst of major changes, and with the help of RBT, they started to interpret what is happening, what the organizational change means to each of them, how they could learn together in terms of raising their awareness about change – and by doing so, they actually created common and shared knowing together. Emerging new knowing was constructed together through aesthetic participation and with the help of storytelling and applied theatre. Storytelling, for instance, enables organizational actors to explore and reflect their own experiences and share with each other; dramatization enables researchers and artists to evocatively read, interpret and analyze authentic voices of organizational actors and customers, and organizational theatre session as an approach enables interaction, communication and reflection concerning what actually happens in at the grass-roots level of one's own organization and gives space for various voices. Bas are arenas for social interaction, theatrical images help in generating dialogue, and dialogue is a way to clarify social self-transcending knowledge and key to enabling conversion of self-transcending knowledge. However, all this ought to be organized with ethics in mind; participation ought to cherish dialogue, and dialogue cannot be controlled by managers. A participative process includes different voices; it is polyphony. It also needs to be kept in mind that different groups of participants or individuals may be in different phases in the organizational change; this is one challenge for change leadership and management, too.