What holds together the VET sector? On the surface, the VET sector is structured around government departments, industry groups, public and private providers, unions and professional associations, training packages and quality guidelines.

However, leaders in the sector have recognised for some years that the sector is also underpinned by the goodwill that exists between the many VET stakeholders. This recognition of the importance of goodwill is demonstrated by the national funding made available for an innovative program for VET communities of practice. Such communities are defined by Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (Cultivating Communities of Practice, 2002) as groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.

Since 2001, the VET sector has seed-funded over one hundred communities of practice through the national staff development and change management program, Reframing the Future, now overseen by DEST. Research shows that these communities of practice are effective mechanisms for VET practitioners to improve their collaboration and networking with peers, industry and the community.

Potential benefits of communities of practice include the following:

• Build trust and relationships
• Provide access to new knowledge
• Foster innovation
• Enhance professional practice
• Support the management of change
• Improve organisational productivity
• Increase social capital.

I provide an example of a community of practice that realises many of these benefits in my column ‘Inside VET’ in Campus Review, 19 October 2005.

On 14 April 2005 I delivered a paper on ‘Effective VET networking with industry in the marketplace’ at the eighth Australian VET Research Association (AVETRA) Conference in Brisbane. Following are some excerpts.

Abstract

Increasingly, the VET marketplace requires vocational education and training (VET) practitioners to network with industry representatives. ‘Networking with industry’ is a new catch-cry within VET, but more research is needed to understand the complexities and benefits of such networking. This paper is based on research conducted over two years, 2003-2004, of forty networks funded by Reframing the Future. The paper builds on a report entitled Building Industry Training Networks (Mitchell 2004), and shows that networks are complex and can be difficult to manage, as participants’ needs and ambitions can constantly change. To be sustained, networks also need to continuously provide value for all members. The paper provides the VET sector with guidelines of how to effectively build networks that impact positively on the individuals and organisations involved and that enhance VET’s achievements in the marketplace.

Summary points

A summary of the key findings is provided below and a fuller description is provided in Mitchell (2004).

• The trust, goodwill, innovation and collaboration in industry training networks can support the national training system
• The need for industry training networks is increasing, as VET organisations become more aware of their dependency on relationships
• Open or loosely structured networks suit the diverse and dispersed membership of many industry training networks
• Building industry training networks is made challenging by factors such as inexperience in networking and the limited resources of small business to participate
• A deep knowledge of VET and high-level facilitation skills help industry training networks function effectively
• Efficient information sharing processes help industry training networks function effectively
• Industry training networks generate new knowledge about practices and possibilities in the national training system
• Individuals, organisations and systems benefit from industry training networks
• The achievements of the 200-2004 industry training networks are impressive given the complexities faced.

Conclusions

This research indicates that it is possible to effectively build and manage industry training networks in VET. The stories of human, organisational and systemic collaboration set out in Mitchell (2004) provide hope for the positive future development of the VET sector. Further encouragement is provided by additional accounts of the 2004 networks set out in Mitchell, McKenna, Perry and Bald (2005; in draft).

To sustain the achievements of the 2003-2004 networks, continued effort is required by the members of each network. All the networks will need to keep revitalising themselves, as members’ goals and ambitions change and external conditions shift. Effective networks are like every other type of healthy relationship in that they need continual care and attention. Ford et al (2003) caution that networks can easily become burdens and liabilities, if not managed effectively.

References

Ford, D., Gadde, L-E, Hakansson, H. & Snehota, I. (2003), Managing Business Relationships, Second Edition, Wiley,  West Sussex
Mitchell, J.G. (2004), Building Industry Training Networks, ANTA, Melbourne
Mitchell, J.G., McKenna, S., Perry, W. & Bald, C. (2005), New Ways of Working in VET, ANTA, Melbourne (in draft)

For a copy of the paper email me at johnm@jma.com.au

Last Tuesday, 21 September 2004, I co-facilitated a one-day workshop for educators networking with industry. Participants at the workshop were reporting on their networking projects, at the mid-way point in a six month period.

I commonly facilitate these types of workshops, but this particular workshop stands out as exceptional, in terms of the quality and depth of conceptual insights tabled on the day. The written evaluations at the end of the day confirmed that the participants also found it exceptional.

On reflection, I believe that the reasons why this workshop was a stand-out are many, some of which included the following:

• the numbers were modest, with around 20 people seated at four round tables, creating an intimate environment
• the participants came well prepared to make a seven minute presentation on their networks, covering three specific topics (agreed goals; achievements; next steps)
• one of the participants, attending as an observer, has undertaken postgraduate courses in fine aspects of networking (e.g. he is an expert on Actor Network Theory), and he had agreed to my request that I would use him as a resource during the day
• three other participants who were there as observers had extensive systemic knowledge of their State training jurisdictions in terms of networks.

The day started well, with the first participant to give his seven minute address deciding to construct his presentation around the information I had set out earlier on two whiteboards. On one whiteboard I had drawn two interlocking circles, with one labeled ‘Providers’ and the other labeled ‘Industry’. On the other whiteboard I had listed five findings from earlier research I had conducted on industry training networks, viz:

• The need for industry training networks is increasing, as VET organizations become more aware of their dependency on relationships
• Open or loosely structured networks suit the diverse and dispersed membership of many industry training networks
• Building industry training networks is made challenging by factors such as inexperience in networking and limited resources of small business to participate
• Efficient information sharing processes help industry training networks function effectively
• Networks can be sustained by continually responding to members’ changing goals and to changing external conditions.

The first participant to make a presentation described his network in terms of the diagram of interlocking circles and analysed his network in terms of the above five features of networks. We then decided to use the diagram of interlocking circles as the focal point for each of the subsequent twelve presentations.

The simple diagram of interlocking circles encouraged much theorizing during the workshop, such as:

• The concept of space and how networks create new spaces for relationships and interactions
• The concept of boundaries and how networks often stretch or explore new boundaries
• The concept of the skilled intermediary, operating between the two worlds of providers and industry
• The concept that we live and work within networks and that, for most of us, these networks are more important than organisations.

The workshop generated multiple insights about the nature of networks and the complex activity of networking, providing the participants with new ways of understanding their current practice. Networking emerges from this workshop as an essential activity and vital skill area for contemporary educators.

Forming networks is one of the buzz concepts in VET at the moment. But beyond the buzz, are networks always a positive phenomenon? We need to be honest about the positives and negatives of networks, but is VET capable of a dispassionate critique of networks? A problem in my beloved VET, in which I have worked for 30 years, is the sector’s historical tendency to be atheoretical, to shun analysis, to hope and pray that the big things in VET life (e.g. provider organizations, industry, teaching, learning) are simple. On the other hand, there are some aspects of VET culture that are attractive and ennobling, such as the genuine desire by the majority of VET practitioners to collaborate to improve services to students.

So I read with considerable interest a brutally frank article in yesterday’s The Australian (Wednesday 11 August 2004) about networks in the university sector, which illustrates some chilling aspects of university culture and the potential negatives of networks. If we think there are some downsides to VET culture, read on for some insights into university culture.

The article was written by John Gava, a senior lecturer in law at my original alma mater, the University of Adelaide. His article was entitled ‘Networks hinder the pursuit of truth’ and he asked some key questions: ‘But does networking threaten the basic goals of academic life? Should academics network?’ Some key points he made are as follows:

Networking threatens honesty in several ways. To establish a network one has to be willing to compromise one’s beliefs in order to attract friends and avoid scaring them away. This might involve being all things to all people, a wonderful skill in a politician or market player but hardly a sound academic attribute.

To establish and maintain a network one must compromise with and help the members of one’s network.

He points out the group pressure in networks to suppress one’s individuality:

In a more subtle way, networking operates as an internal censor, ensuring that one’s opinions and decisions will accord with the needs of the network.

Finally, Gava sees networks as contrary to the core identity of the pure academic:

A true intellectual has to be prepared to disagree with, indeed offend, the closest of colleagues. The objects of a network will always work against one’s intellectual conscience.

Besides alarming VET practitioners about the fiercely individual and competitive ethos of a university, Gava has bravely and correctly reminded us that networks do have limitations; they do require compromises; and they can threaten truth.

In the literature on networking, Cohen and Prusak (2001, p.70) note the potential limitations of networks, which can become like rigid clans – elitist, insular, idiosyncratic, corrupt or destructive. Networks can also develop ‘groupthink’ and ossify. Networks can breed unthinking loyalty and unquestioned shared beliefs. On the other hand, warm and fuzzy networks prevent people from asking tough questions.

There is some hope for networks in VET. Cohen and Prusak (2001, p.72) believe that the key to developing and sustaining networks is maintaining trust. VET practitioners often pride themselves on their capacity to trust, and this characteristic can militate against the negatives of networking described by Gava. But we need to be ever mindful of the limitations of networks. Gava's honesty is to be commended.

I am currently involved in various programs which are encouraging the development of skills in forming networks, particularly between providers of training and industry clients. I find that many providers have only a rudimentary conceptual framework for understanding the nature of networks: they have not thought much about how networks function. But when I talk to these providers about the theory of networks and invite them to critique their own networks using this theory, they normally have an ‘ah ha’ response: network theory resonates with their own experiences.

I would just like to discuss one aspect of networking theory here: the concept of open or closed networks; or networks with and without closure. Imagine five people in a network: person A, B, C, D and E. In a network without closure, or an open network, person A can impact on persons B and C; but B and C are not directly connected, with one linked to D and one to E. In this open network, there are a limited number of shared norms influencing behaviour. However, in a network with closure, the parties are all interlinked and can exert influence on each other to observe agreed norms of behaviour: obligations can be imposed (see Coleman, in Lesser 2000, p.27).

Regarding the various structures of networks, Adler and Kwon (2000) distinguish between those closed networks where there are direct or dense ties or connections between members and those open networks where the ties are weak. Closed or dense networks facilitate the emergence of shared norms and encourage trust among members while open networks may involve lower levels of trust (p.98).

The scope and structure of a network may change during its life, as members seek to gain different benefits from involvement:

• For instance, early in the development of a network, joint goals can be developed and collaborative strategies agreed upon, and at this stage the structure may still be fluid.
• As the network settles into operation, decisions may need to be made about how to gain optimum value from involvement and how to handle complex issues that arise, requiring a more formal and closed structure.
• On the other hand, a long-standing network may only need a loose structure, as there are increasing levels of cooperation, requiring limited coordination and planning.

Interestingly, some theorists argue that networks with weak ties between members have significant value, allowing for the easy flow of information between members without the need for many shared norms (Adler and Kwon 2000, p.98). This is important to note, because to form closed or dense networks may be difficult within many VET settings, where there are so many different stakeholders, from enterprises, to unions, to training organisations, often separated by distance and by different work patterns.

VET practitioners may wish to consider strongly the benefits of open or loosely structured networks, where a closed network is inappropriate or not feasible. For example, research cited by Adler and Kwon (2000) suggests that, in sparse or open networks, brokers who interact with many different community members can disseminate information of value to members without imposing extensive sociability or obligations on people (p.98). The potential activities of VET practitioners as brokers or intermediaries are described by Gientzotis (2003).

Networks are categorised other than by describing them as closed or open. For instance, Fulop and Linstead (1999) provide the following categories: vertical and horizontal networks, pooled and complementary networks, product and service networks and learning networks.

I discuss these concepts further in Chapter 1 of the report Building Industry Training Networks (ANTA, 2004), available at http://reframingthefuture.net (click on Publications then click on Sub-program 4).

I often mentor groups who attempt to form communities of practice but, for reasons often beyond their control, they do not achieve a fundamental purpose of such communities – the sharing of practice. Instead, members hold back, happy to share general information, but reluctant to disclose and interrogate aspects of their practice, such as how their beliefs about learners and teaching.

With such groups, I suggest they value what they are achieving and not see themselves as failures. In many cases, the group is operating like a network, not a community of practice, and networks are also to be valued. A network is not inferior to a community of practice – it is just different. Let’s look at the definitions of both.

To clarify the unique features of networks, Wenger and Snyder (2000) distinguish between networks and three other work structures, as follows:

• work teams deliver a product or service;
• project teams seek to accomplish a specific task;
• communities of practice develop members’ capabilities and exchange knowledge;
• networks collect and pass on knowledge.

The above definition of networks is too narrow, according to Cohen and Prusak (2001, p.56), who find that both networks and communities of practice are groups of people brought together by common interests, experiences, goals, or tasks; and both imply regular communication and bonds characterised by some degree of trust and altruism.

However, Cohen and Prusak (2001 p.56) believe that networks are different to communities of practice in a number of ways:

• communities of practice are harder to organise, maintain and sustain, and are often intense, high-effort and short-term
• networks are simpler to organise, rely mostly on mutual needs and are often long-lasting.

Networks are also different to communities of practice in other ways:

• communities of practice enforce norms but networks are often too diffuse to do so;
• communities of practice have a type of closed membership while networks are open;
• and communities of practice have a shared domain of knowledge while networks are less concentrated in their focus (Cohen and Prusak 2001, p.56).

While networks are different to communities of practice, they are of value to both the individual and organisations:

Though network building mainly happens between individuals, it contributes to an organisation’s social capital. Many of the benefits individuals derive from networks and communities – a sense of membership and purpose, recognition, learning and knowledge – can also pay huge benefits to the organisation (Cohen and Prusak 2001, pp.60-61).

Networks are not inferior to communities of practice. Both have high value. Both are needed in VET.

Earlier this week I had a meeting with a VET professional about a raft of organisational development issues at her large TAFE Institute. Just one of the topics we discussed was how to foster communities of practice.

But first a definition is required. There are many definitions of communities of practice in the literature but a simple and useful one provided by Lesser & Storck (2001, p.831) is that they are ‘a group whose members regularly engage in sharing and learning, based on their common interests’.

Although they recognise that each community is unique in the type of support it requires from the organisation, Lesser and Everest (2001) provide some general guidelines for communities of practice that can be applied in many situations: 

1. Focus resources on communities that have strategic implications for the organisation
2. Provide the community with the time and space to interact
3. Designate roles and responsibilities to support the community
4. Market the community and its success stories. 

Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) suggest seven principles for cultivating communities of practice:

1. Design for evolution, so that the community can grow and change, for instance when new members bring new interests to the group
2. Open a dialogue between the inside and outside perspective, with insiders providing deep understanding of the community issues and outsiders helping members to see wider possibilities
3. Invite different levels of participation, allowing members to participate in ways that suit their level of interest
4. Develop both public and private community spaces, so that all levels of relationships can flourish. Public spaces are meetings and using an online forum; private spaces are one-on-one encounters, either face-to-face or electronically.
5. Focus on value, because communities thrive when they deliver value to the organisation and to the members
6. Combine familiarity and excitement, satisfying members’ needs for both comfort and divergent thinking
7. Create a rhythm for the community, through regular meetings, teleconferences, online interactions and informal events, mixing idea-sharing forums and tool-building projects (pp.49-64).

Fostering and supporting communities of practice requires high-level skills. To develop these high-level skills we can tap into useful literature on communities of practice and the increasing expertise in the VET sector. But there is no escaping the subtle, sophisticated work involved.

I discuss these and related isssues in Chapter 3 of my report The Potential for Communities of Practice to Underpin the National Training Framework.

The report is available at http://reframiningthefuture.net (click on ‘Publications’ then click on ‘Sub-program 4).

Much of my work with professionals and their organisations is implicitly about knowledge management, but the term knowledge management is not easily defined. Some further explanation of the term is due.

In the mid-late 1990s, the concept of knowledge management became popular in the western world, based on the belief that a company’s strategic advantages often hinged on the knowledge of staff. Database companies were quick to suggest that the key to managing the knowledge of staff was to somehow channel all corporate knowledge into databases.

However, definitions of knowledge such as the following by McDermott and Snyder (2002, pp.8-14) stress the different types of knowledge that might exist in an organisation and which cannot be captured solely in a database:

• Knowledge lives in the human act of knowing. The knowledge of experts such as surgeons is an accumulation of experience that remains dynamic: part of their ongoing experience. Communities of Practice make knowledge an integral part of their activities and interactions, and they serve as a living repository for that knowledge.
• Knowledge is tacit as well as explicit. Not everything we know can be codified as documents or tools. In business, tacit knowledge, such as a deep understanding of the complex systems in an industry or in VET, is sometimes more valuable than explicit knowledge. Sharing tacit knowledge involves interaction and informal learning processes such as storytelling and coaching of the kind that Communities of Practice provide.
• Knowledge is social as well as individual. A body of knowledge, say about the NTF, is developed through communal involvement, not just from reading documents. 
• Knowledge is dynamic. What makes knowledge management a challenge is that knowledge is not static: it is not an object that can be stored, owned and moved around like a document. Knowledge resides in the skills, understanding and relationships of its members as well as in tools, documents and processes.

If one accepts such a multi-layered definition of knowledge, ‘managing’ such different types of knowledge requires a new response by managers. Both individuals and organisations within VET will benefit if managers encourage staff to collaborate and share their knowledge with their peers and across the organisation.

From my own research, I have found that the structure of a community of practice provides an ideal platform for such sharing of knowledge. On the other hand, communities of practice are complex, subtle and challenging undertakings, which require managers to use skills and knowledge not previously part of their conventional duties.

I discuss these concepts further in my report The Potential for Communities of Practice to Underpin the National Training Framework, available at http://reframingthefuture.net (click on ‘Publications’ then click on ‘Sub-program 4’).

I recently conducted research on networks in VET which underlined the extensive benefits of networks to both participants and organisations.

Cohen and Prusak (2001, pp.61) find that networks provide an interlocking web of connections and help people develop their identities. Additionally, they find that:

• membership of a network implies a commitment to the group and its work and to cooperation
• network membership implies connection, based around the trust, understanding, and mutuality that support collaborative, cohesive action.

My research found that:

• networks help individuals to acquire new information and resources and share with their peers their explicit and tacit knowledge about their profession
• networks encourage members to reflect on and potentially improve their own practice
• networks help people further develop their identities, in this case, as VET practitioners or collaborators
• networks enable individuals to learn more about their own organisation – which is the common focus of networks reported on in the literature
• networks also enable individuals to learn about industry, if they are a provider, or about providers if they are from industry.

Cohen and Prusak (2001, p.61) find that many of the benefits that individuals derive from networks and communities – a sense of membership and purpose, recognition, learning, and knowledge – can also provide benefits for the organisation. Networks and communities contribute to the development of social capital in organisations, defined by Cohen and Prusak (2001) as a company’s stock of human connections:

Social capital consists of the stock of active connections among people: the trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behaviour that bind the members of human networks and communities and make cooperative action possible (p.4).

In addition to developing social capital, Alter and Hage (quoted in Fulop and Linstead 1999, p.446) find that the business benefits of organisations working together include:

• opportunities to learn and adapt and to develop competencies or products
• a gain of resources – time, money, information, raw materials, legitimacy, status
• an ability to manage uncertainty and to solve invisible and complex problems
• an ability to specialise or diversify and to fend off competitors
• rapid responses to changing market demands.

Many different types of organisations were involved in the 2003 networks I studied, from enterprises, to industry associations, to provider groups, to government agencies. The benefits of participation for these groups varied, but the benefits were many, including:

• developing a better understanding of each other’s needs
• working together on training programs
• creating a climate of trust for future collaboration.

The findings from the 2003 networks confirm research by Ford et al (2003) who found that networks are essential to viability in contemporary business:

All companies are becoming more dependent on their relationships with those around them. And all these companies and relationships must cope with pressures and capitalise on opportunities from wider afield in the network (p.xi).

My research on networks is contained in the following report for ANTA - Building Industry Training Networks - available from http://reframingthefuture.net (click on ‘Publications’ and then click on ‘sub-program 4’).