Towards a Conceptual Framework for Requirement Gathering and Roadmapping in the Design of Learning Technologies

co-funded by the European Community eContentplus programme

Towards a Conceptual Framework for Requirement Gathering and

Roadmapping in the Design of Learning Technologies

Tore Hoel

Oslo University College

2009 Joint Summer School on Technology Enhanced LearningTerchova, Sloavia

1tirsdag 2. juni 2009


Background

• Standards Governance & Role of Standards– Would Roadmapping give a better Horizon Scan

of what standards to develop, use or scrap?

• Requirement gathering

• ICOPER is doing roadmapping!– And so were Prolearn, and almost any other

European project... 2



Standards Development Life Cycle

3Source: LIFE project



Outline

• Roadmapping – what theoretical underpinning?

• SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi) as a knowledge management/ organisational learning theory...

• ...Challenged byCultural-Historical Activity Theory (Engeström)

• Towards a Conceptual Model for Roadmapping?

4


Roadmapping Evolution

IMTI2000-2001

IMS2000

BRIDGES1999-2002

ROCKET2001-2003

Time2Learn2002-2004

Prolearn2003-2007

SCORM 2003

eGov2006- 2007

Source: Vana Kamtsiou, ICOPER


Roadmapping Evolution

IMTI2000-2001

IMS2000

BRIDGES1999-2002

ROCKET2001-2003

Time2Learn2002-2004

Prolearn2003-2007

ICOPER Roadmap

SCORM 2003

eGov2006- 2007

Source: Vana Kamtsiou, ICOPER



What is the Object of Roadmapping?

6

Subject

Object

Tool

Outcome

• Business Process Redesign?• Foresight – prediction of future state?• Learning process – knowledge creation process?• Consensus creating process?



Runaway objects

• have the potential to escalate and expand up a global scale of influence

• poorly under anybody's control and have far-reaching, unexpected effects

• are contested (...) that generate opposition and controversy

7Source: (Engeström, 2008)



Runaway objects

• have the potential to escalate and expand up a global scale of influence

• poorly under anybody's control and have far-reaching, unexpected effects

• are contested (...) that generate opposition and controversy

7

Learning technologies?

Source: (Engeström, 2008)



Roadmaps Common Features

• Timelines: Scope 7 - 8 years – present, short, medium and long term).

• Scenarios in order to define desired futures (Where we want to be?)

• Current state assessment (Where we are today?) • Gap Analysis by comparing the desired future

with the current state assessment • Hierarchical maps of topics• Maturity level assessment (number of maturity

levels and their description varies) • Survey and analysis tools (SWOT, etc.)

8



From Grand Challenges to Actions

9

Source: IMTI model adopted inthe Time2Learn Roadmap


The Grand Challenge: Design, deliver and support competency-based learning

Key Processes

4 High level processes synthesizing Grand Challenge

1. Needs Analysis2. Planning and Design3. Learning Provision

Scenarios / Use cases

Gap analysis

Actions Recommendations

Key concepts and Issues (critical capabilities) to implement the key processes and problems to solve

Desired “Future States” /Alternative Strategies:Articulated requirements and future scenarios

Identification of actions recommendations Assessment of Actions against predefined criteria Provide & timelines (ST, MT, LT)

LET Activities Processes Services Data

ICOPER SIGs

Key concepts / issues

IMTI: Integrated Manufacturing Technology Initiative, 2000 http://www.imti21.orgTime2Learn March 2004 www.time2learn.orgPROLEARN Roadmap 2007 www.prolearn-project.org

ICOPER

Testing scenarios against state of the art -iSuresIdentify strengths and weaknesses (Gaps)

Structuring the ICOPER work and outcomes in reference to the IRM


http://www.imti21.org/

http://www.imti21.org/

http://www.time2learn.org/

http://www.time2learn.org/

http://www.prolearn-project.org/





The Roadmapping Process

11



The Roadmapping Process

11

Source: Ambjörn Naeve/Prolearn



Extending the Model (Prolearn)

12

The SECI model of Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995)



Extending the Model (Prolearn)

12

The SECI model of Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995)



SECI used in Prolearn

13




13




13



Criticism of the SECI model

• Syncretistic Mysticism?

14



The empirical basis of SECI• The crucial question is:

– Are such representational modes of knowledge an appropriate basis for discerning phases and recurrent sequential patterns in processes of knowledge creation? In other words, is Nonaka and Takeuchi's leap from a matrix to a cycle justified?

Engeström, 2008a

15

?



What definition of roadmapping do we bring with us in the analysis?

• Not about predicting the future!• Strategic Planning tool? Hardly...• More about organisational learning and

knowledge creation

16

Need to ground the activity in Learning Theories or Theories of Knowledge Creation



4 Questions to introduce us to Cultural-Historical Activity Theory

1. Where are we going?2. Who gains, and who loses, by which

mechanisms of power? 3. Is it desirable? 4. What should be done?

17

Bent Flyberg’s heuristic questions in Developmental Work Research



Where are we going?

• How is historical data used in the analysis?

18

SOCIOGENESIS;DEVELOPMENT OFTHE ACTIVITY SYSTEM

ONTOGENESIS; PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

MICROGENESIS;DEVELOPMENT OF

ACTIONS

MOMENT IN THE FLOW OF ACTIVITY

Source: Lecture Engeström, UiO, November 2008


SOCIOGENESIS;DEVELOPMENT OFTHE ACTIVITY SYSTEM

ONTOGENESIS; PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

MICROGENESIS;DEVELOPMENT OF

ACTIONS

MOMENT IN THE FLOW OF ACTIVITY

SubjectObject

Outcomesense,meaning

Rules Community Division of labor

Instruments:tools and signs

Production

Exchange Distribution

Consumption

SubjectObject




Production


Consumption

SubjectObject




Production


Consumption

Disturbances, Dilemmas, Turning Points, Voices, Trails...

Critical conflicts, Experiencing

Contraditions, Cycles of development

Source: Lecture Engeström, UiO, November 2008



Is it desirable?

• How do we trace the driving forces of development, and how is object orientation built into the model?

20

Subject

Object

Outcomesense,

meaning





Who gains, and who loses, by which mechanisms of power?

• What are the tools and signs available for different participants and how are they used to construct the object of the activity?

• How it allows for analysis of the mediated actions in the development of the knowledge creation process?

21



What should be done?

• Is the action plan an integrated part of the roadmapping process that is further developed, or is it just a teleological end point?

22



ICOPER as a case

23



1. Unit of analysis

• What is the starting point for ICOPER roadmapping?– Grand Challenges derived in in a top-down

manner?– ICOPER pedagogical framework

• Does SECI help to come up with the Unit of Analysis

24



Engeström on SECI

A central problem with Nonaka and Takeuchi’ s model, and with many other models of organizational learning, is the assumption that the assignment for knowledge creation is unproblematically given from above. In other words, what is to be created and learned is depicted as a management decision that is outside the bounds of the local process (see Engeström, 1999b). This assumption leads to a model in which the first step consists of smooth, conflict-free socializing, the creation of ‘sympathized knowledge’ as Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) call it.

(Engeström, 2001, p. 151) 25



Source: Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.

Subject


Instruments

Subject

RulesCommunity

Instruments

Division of labor

Potentially shared object

Addressing the relevant activity systems



2. Tools and signs used?

• How are the actors allowed to construct their object of activity, observed by their use of tools and signs?

• What mediating artefacts make the power relations visible?

• ICOPER: Comptency• SECI model has

no «battle zones»– more about «ying-yang and harmony»

27



3. Driving forces

• There is no activity without an object (Leont’ev) The object is a moving target, never fully accomplished (...) The object resists and kicks back (Engeström)

• What drives roadmapping analysing using SECI?– The top level concepts (e.g., Grand Challenges,

Critical Capabilities) seems to drive the analysis– SECI has not built-in mechanisms for questioning

the point of departure of the knowledge creating process

28



4. Termination of the process – the action plan

• Prolearn SECI spiral– Core group → Associates → Scientific community

• A spiralling process with limited feedback looping

• How to make sure that we don’t have a too early closure of the knowledge creating process? 29



Bringing the framework forward

• What drives the knowledge creation?• How to access the gaps?• The role of modelling• Bringing in Engeström’s model of Expansive

learning

30



31

4. EXAMININGAND TESTING THE NEW MODEL

3. MODELING THE NEW SOLUTION

5. IMPLEMENTING THE NEW MODEL

6. REFLECTING ON THE PROCESS

7. CONSOLIDATING AND GENERALIZING THE NEW PRACTICE

2. ANALYSIS

1. QUESTIONING

Source: Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. (available online at: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm)

NEED STATE

DOUBLE BIND

BREAKTHROUGH

RESISTANCE

STABILIZATION

ADJUSTMENT,ENRICHMENT



31

4. EXAMININGAND TESTING THE NEW MODEL

3. MODELING THE NEW SOLUTION

5. IMPLEMENTING THE NEW MODEL

6. REFLECTING ON THE PROCESS

7. CONSOLIDATING AND GENERALIZING THE NEW PRACTICE

2. ANALYSIS

1. QUESTIONING

Source: Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. (available online at: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm)

NEED STATE

DOUBLE BIND

BREAKTHROUGH

RESISTANCE

STABILIZATION

ADJUSTMENT,ENRICHMENT



Towards a conceptual model – ways forward?

• Keep core parts of the SECI model?– e.g., the four movements (S, E, C, I)

• Finding the right Unit of Analysis– We need a Requirement Gathering model for

Roadmapping

• Spotting Contradictions and Resistance – and making constructive use of them– Looking for both Consensus and Disagreements

• Giving Modelling a prominent place in the framework

32



2bDiscussed

• What other theories could be used to strengthen roadmapping theoretically?

• What «extensions» should we look for?• Other ideas?

33



Thanks!

Information on ICOPER projectwww.icoper.org

Please write to me or join my network:

tore.hoel[@]hio.notwitter.com/tore

www.hoel.nu/wordpress

34


http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic

http://www.ic


References• Engeström, Y. (2008a). From teams to knots: activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work.

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.• Engeström (2008b) From design experiments to formative interventions. Presentation at the ISCAR

Conference.

• Engeström (2008c) The future of Activity Theory: A rough draft. Keynote lecture presented at the ISCAR Conference in San Diego, Sept. 8-13, 2008.

• Engeström (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2001

• Engeström, Y. (2000). From individual action to collective activity and back: Developmental work research as an interventionist methodology. Workplace studies. Reco ering Work Practice and Informing System Design . J. H. C. H. E. P. Luff. Cambridge , Cambridge University Press.

• Engeström, Y. (1999) Expansive Visibilization of Work: An Activity-Theoretical Perspective, Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8: 63–93, 1999.

• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Orienta-Konsultit.

• Kamtsiou and Naeve (2008) Roadmapping: a methodology to improve the strategy for design of learning technologise. ICALT 2008

• Kamtsiou et al. (2006) Roadmapping as a Knowledge Creation Process: The PROLEARN Roadmap, Journal of Universal Knowledge Management, Vol 1, Issue 3

• Kappel, T. A. (2001). Perspectives on roadmaps: how organizations talk about the future. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18: 39-50.

• Koskinen, T. (2004) Roadmapping the e-training future for Europe, Online Educa 2004

• 35
