SUSTAINING
ONLINE COLLABORATION: SEVEN LESSONS for application in the volkswagen autouni
Lisa M. Blaschke
Team
building is a challenge in face-to-face environments – and even more so when conducted
at a distance. Volkswagen’s (VW) AutoUni is tasked with not only building
successful teams with corresponding results, but also nurturing, sustaining,
and maximizing those teams over time and distance. AutoUni’s key challenge of
getting teams to sustainably share and create knowledge is coupled with that of
creating a blended environment of online and face-to-face collaboration, while
conquering the evolving knowledge management and learning frontier. AutoUni
requires a strong framework as the foundation for its online education
activities; with that in mind, this paper reviews the current research and best
practices in e-learning and online collaboration and defines seven important
lessons for sustaining collaborative efforts in an online environment.
Meister
[1] predicts that the skills of communication and collaboration will be of
growing importance in the twenty-first century organization. Online collaboration can be an effective
approach to cognitive and social learning through formation of a collective
intelligence actively created from team members’ ideas, associations, and
structuring of information and the team processes themselves (Harasim [2]). The
resulting virtual teams will make organizations more dynamic and able to
respond more quickly to global demands, as well as expose employees to new
ideas, cultures, and new ways of doing business (Jarvenpaa & Leidner [3]).
With the growing trends of global expansion and international, virtual teams,
the challenge becomes creating and sustaining collaborative efforts in an
online environment – without losing the dynamics that make teams successful.
The following seven lessons build on current e-learning industry research and
best practices for forming and sustaining successful collaboration at a
distance.
First
and foremost, it is integral that a learning culture – one which encourages and
supports learning and open distribution of knowledge – is prevalent within an organization.
Leaders
build visions of a learning culture and then work to implement them through
their strategic plans and their example and support. Meister [1] found that the
average CEO spends at least one day a month facilitating learning in his/her
organization: being involved in workout sessions, presenting values and vision
at new hire orientation sessions, and facilitating senior management training.
Such involvement “promotes a culture of continuous learning and helps to
transform the organization” (p. 50). Berge [5] also calls for the support of
the top leaders in an organization, which is exhibited through their enthusiasm
and hands-on involvement – and their willingness to provide financial support
when and where needed. Without the support of top management and key leaders
within the organization, enterprise-wide training initiatives are almost
certain to fail. Identifying leaders who will cultivate and propagate a
learning culture is essential; in some cases, it may even be necessary to show
management examples of successful learning cultures, for example through case
studies.
Culture
building strategies include making management accountable for learning,
initiating change at the enterprise level, making learning part of the job,
making everyone a teacher, designing good courses, certifying learners, paying
learners to learn, and making learning accessible and affordable (Rosenberg
[4], pp. 185-189). Show-casing best practices within the organization can also
encourage and cultivate a learning culture; blatant indoctrination of the
learning culture can also be effective, for example though team workshops and
management training. However, a culture of learning can only be created and
sustained when top management leads by example. Leaders who strictly go through
the motions and do not reflect the characteristics of a learning culture will
not achieve the desired results in their organizations.
Learning
champions are the next critical element that must exist within an organization
in order for e-collaboration to succeed. Learning champions are the people who
emulate the art of online collaboration by practicing it daily in a variety of
forms – and by preaching its benefits to non and new practitioners. They are
also the people who jump in when online collaboration attempts begin to
struggle or falter. Learning champions should be at all levels of management,
including the CEO.
Involving
top leadership and management in the promotion of online collaborative activity
has the greatest impact on the success of those activities, assures
credibility, and ensures buy-in (Jones & Laffey [6]). The influence of
champions through resource allocation and making rewards available also lends
itself to successful collaborative efforts. Driscoll [7] recommends having a
powerful and visible champion for online projects, a person who can “hold
people accountable for deliverables, create working relationships between
cross-functional groups, and make scarce resources available” (p. 229).
Numerous
successful institutions have utilized learning champions within their
organizations. The U.S. Army Intelligence Center implemented an adhoc task
force called the Tiger Team, individuals who believed in the program and
who represented requirements of key stakeholders (Ellsworth & Iorizzo [8]).
SBC Communications, Inc. found that when top leadership believes in the
program, better planning, teamwork, and support are the results (Friend &
Hepple [9]). The support of key executives was critical to MCI WorldCom’s
e-learning program and also built up relationships within the organization
(Treanor & Irwin [10]). Ford also utilized champions, additionally
stressing the importance of ongoing care and maintenance of designated
champions (Dessinger & Conley [11], p. 197).
Upper
management support is not the only important factor in determining project
success – the significance of grass roots support cannot be overlooked. To
obtain this support, extensive internal public relations campaigns may be
necessary, for example via the company newsletter and intranet sites, personal
communications, and even an awards program. Sometimes the simplest, although
most work-intensive, solution is through one-on-one interaction (see Covey’s
[12] practice of empathic listening); this solution can be particularly
effective in rooting out and winning over the opposition. The involvement and
influence of learning champions is a precursor to achieving this
cross-organizational support.
Covey
[12] calls trust “the highest form of human motivation”; where high levels of
trust exist within an organization, communication and cooperation are high, and
are accompanied by synergistic, win/win results (p. 178). Likewise, where trust
is low, levels of communication, support, excitement, and cooperation are low
(Jarvenpaa & Leidner [3]). Palloff & Pratt [13] have found that before
participants can form connections with each other and offer honest and open
feedback, a sense of safety and trust must exist.
The
initial establishment of the team seems to be the most critical phase, and exchanging open and
thoughtful messages at the start is important in ensuring a team’s viability.
Quality and predictability of online interactions – not necessarily the
quantity – are also key to sustaining interaction. Participants should be
timely with reports and provide thorough feedback to team members. Team member
qualities like responsibility, dependability, independence, and
self-sufficiency are essential; trust-building activities, such as volunteering
to complete tasks and social communication, seem to strengthen and unify teams
(Jarvenpaa & Leidner [3]). Recognizing team needs and showing team members
the personal and business benefits of team collaboration is also a motivating
factor in sustaining collaboration, as participants need to have a sense of the
added value that collaboration brings to their actual work (Jones & Laffey
[6]; Birch [14]).
Online
team members can be easily alienated and by personally meeting team members, an
elevated sense of community can be achieved (Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, &
Tinker [15]). If this isn’t possible, another way to achieve a sense of
community is by posting photos of team members. Collison etal. [15] recommends
acknowledging team member emotions, since a potential breakdown of communication
can occur when emotional undercurrents are ignored. By working through the
emotions, teams more firmly establish trust levels and relationships. Birch
[14] states that building relationships is an important skill when
collaborating virtually, and to be effective, online collaborators need to be
ready to clarify points rather than jump to conclusions.
Within
an online environment it can be difficult to develop the kind of spontaneous
team relationships that form over a cup of coffee or at the water cooler in
face-to-face environments. To get around this, NCR provided its employees with
the videoconferencing “wormhole” – an online socializing area, much like a
corporate water cooler (Lipnack & Stamps [16]). The Teacher Learning
Conference (TLC) also implemented an online socializing tool, called the “Water
Cooler” discussion area, where team members could get to know each other, as
well as provide assistance to other team members (Collison etal. [15], p. 85).
Trust-building
activities such as problem-resolution activities (e.g., case studies,
brainstorming) in an initial face-to-face or online environment can promote and
nurture trust, producing positive results in establishing a foundation of trust
within a team and a strong basis for future online collaboration. Once online,
team members need to watch for warning signs of diminishing trust in online
collaboration efforts, for example, abrupt reduction of posts or no posts at
all, unanswered posts, posts displaying an “I-don’t-care-you-decide” attitude,
and lightly veiled anger and/or frustration in posts. Confronting and resolving
issues can build trust as well as team member relationships. “Off-line”
discussions, for example through follow-up telephone calls, can assist in
resolving conflict and building trust.
Without
effective communication, online collaborative efforts can become fragmented,
leaving participants with feelings of isolation and confusion. For
collaboration to be successful, there should be preparation, organization, and
management of the collaborative process. Guidelines for improving communication
when collaborating on online projects include the following: clearly state the project purpose, strategy,
and expectations; clearly define responsibilities to avoid confusion and
frustration; provide communication guidelines; communicate on a regular
schedule; define goals and objectives – most importantly shared goals
and objectives; define conflict-management and resolution processes, and
address conflict immediately; formulate tasks briefly and clearly – and make
sure team members understand them; use clear, concise, and straight-forward
language; establish a moderator and timeframe for synchronous discussions; and
provide a documented summary of all discussions (Burge & Roberts [17];
Richardson & Turner [18]; Jarvenpaa & Leidner [3]; Palloff & Pratt
[13]).
Benchmarks
for success of the online collaboration, as well as expectations and
assumptions, should also be clearly identified and documented (Driscoll [7]). A
chart with tasks to be completed – and how the tasks relate to each other –
should be developed and shared with the team. Prompt communication about
design, changes, deadlines, and other project-related issues must also be
managed. Gamonal [19] advises using the best tools available, planning around
peak availability of team members, grouping team members by geographical
location where appropriate, showing sensitivity to different cultures, and
using simple language with pictures/diagrams.
Making
sure that team members have access to information – for example via a learning
portal on the company intranet – is also integral to sustaining collaboration.
Team members need access to just-enough and just-in-time information, and
intelligent knowledge management is essential. NCR credits its success in
online collaboration to its “Global Realization Process,” a comprehensive
planning and project management system that tracked and measured teams’
progress monthly, weekly, and daily (Lipnack & Stamps [16]). To keep their
teams informed, UAW-DaimlerChrysler utilized online directories of team members
and a project management Web site (Codde, Egidio, Boatwright, Zahn, &
Czarnik [20]).
The
author’s collaborative team efforts within the Master of Distance Education
(MDE) program at the University of Maryland University College have shown that
choosing a leader at the onset of a project can help keep communication lines
open and projects on track. With team input, the leader can identify action
plans and prepare project time schedules; however, team members should have the
freedom to decide which activities they will participate in, as assigning tasks
without team input can be detrimental to team morale.
Gamonal
[19] recommends that online project teams meet face-to-face three to four times
annually. Face-to-face interactions should be organized for new project kickoffs,
brainstorming sessions, problem solving sessions, welcome sessions, and
milestone celebrations. NCR’s Roberson (in Lipnack & Stamps [16])
reiterates this, stating: “You still need all-hands meetings. With all this
wonderful technology and shared information, they still don’t replace the need
to get together with the whole team in a particular site and communicate with
them on what’s going on, on what the
direction is, and on the importance of their contributions” (p. 6).
UAW-DaimlerChrysler also used occasional face-to-face meetings on an as-needed
basis (Codde etal. [20]).
The
author’s professional and education experience supports Gamonal’s findings,
especially the importance of face-to-face interaction in the early phases of a
project. Face-to-face interaction is also extremely beneficial, as well as
motivating, when complex problems must be addressed and when projects lose
direction.
For
online collaboration to flow smoothly, the necessary technological and
organizational infrastructures must be in place. For example, there needs to be
a strong relationship between IT and the training department, and there must
comprehensive technical support for faculty and learners (Bates [21]). The
software and hardware environment should make team members feel comfortable,
thereby contributing to team members’ sense of safety and security within the
environment (Palloff & Pratt [13]). UAW-DaimlerChrysler addressed increased
technology and Internet requirements in their strategic planning (Codde etal.
[20]), while Ford’s support infrastructure included a high-level oversight
committee of senior management to help quickly resolve and overcome process and
technical infrastructure problems (Dessinger & Conley [11]).
Interface
design of the online collaboration tools needs to be simple and easy-to-use.
When usability is compromised, team members spend more time trouble-shooting
than on working on project activities. A confusing interface design can also
create feelings of discomfort and confusion for team members, which can lead to
reduced participation. Formal or informal project guidelines and processes can
also create infrastructure within teams, as well as help team members feel more
comfortable working in an online environment (i.e., rules are clarified from
the start). It is also essential to choose a communication media that is
accesible to all team members; using media not available to the entire team can
lead to a sense of alienation and isolation in non-participating team members.
Ravitz’s
[22] model for building learning communities is based on an ISD process of
management (creating the development team), front end analysis (selecting a
theme, identifying resources), design (providing communications tools,
identifying shared interests and teams), development (develop projects),
implementation (producing work, sharing process information), evaluation
(assessing published work, providing feedback, evaluating the system), and
dissemination (sharing process information, outcomes, and useful products) (pp.
300-303). For each phase of the process, Ravitz proposes formative questions
which serve as checkpoints to ensure that lines of communication remain open, such
as: Is the team responsive and demonstrating shared understandings? Is there
sufficient interest? Are people sharing ideas and plans, and receiving feedback
during development? Processes need to be reviewed and revised base on
continuous feedback. SBC evaluates and improves its processes through
mechanisms such as templates, standards, quality assurance processes, and
process improvement teams, and applying common solutions across projects
(Friend & Hepple [9]). It is beneficial to have someone within the team who
measures the climate of the collaboration – is the online project moving in the
right direction? Are there potential pitfalls? What is the general feeling of
the group? This person keeps the project moving along if it begins to stagnate.
While this role can be assumed by the leader, another team member may also take
on the responsibility.
Jones
& Laffey [6] find that there must be continual learning and a willingness
to adapt to change within a learning organization, and that online
collaboration opens up a wide range of possibilities for implementing knowledge
management. Ford employees Dessinger & Conley [11] write: “Change is
ongoing in open systems, and change without change management will ultimately
kill a system” (p. 197). The Réseau INTERACTION Network (RIN) credited its
flexibility to adapt to changing needs as a key success factor (Larocque &
Thomas [23]). DaimlerChrysler found that to gain a competitive advantage, their
global workforce needed to be “knowledge driven, collaborative, and able to
deal with an accelerating pace of change” (Codde etal. [20]).
AutoUni’s
motto that “knowledge is the key!” provides valuable insight into AutoUni’s
commitment to and support of a learning culture. Its practice of gaining new
approaches to solutions and ideas based on scientific theory, its
transdisciplinarity approach, its integration of technical, commerical,
intellectual, and sociological aspects into its teaching, and its innovative
organization, teaching, learning, and think tank strategies are all examples of
how learning is valued in the organization. AutoUni’s unique and innovative
education structures, particularly the AutoUniQUE platform, think tank, and qualification lab,
and its usage of the latest in teaching and learning methods demonstrate
AutoUni’s readiness to manage change within its organization. By developing its
own learning and knowledge platform to support its processes, AutoUni is also establishing
the necessary infrastructure for organizing its collaborative efforts.
AutoUni’s research approach of shortening the distance between research and
business will be instrumental in creating synergy and innovation in the
workplace (Volkswagen AutoUni website [24]; Logassi & Gagnebin [25]). And by placing 250 million Euro into the
AutoUni program, VW’s senior management is firmly commiting itself to the
importance of learning in its organization. (Barthold [26]).
To
sustain a collaborative environment where knowledge is continually shared and
generated, fundamental elements of trust and organizational discipline must
exist within online teams. Not only must this trust and discipline exist, but
it must be cultivated and nurtured over time. A learning culture needs to
pervade all levels of the organization, and a technological and procedural
framework for supporting online collaboration must be established and
continually evaluated for improvements. Champions can be the most significant
factor in sustaining online collaboration over time, and they will need to be
identified and supported within the organization. By heralding online
collaboration, learning champions can ensure the continued propagation and
distribution of knowledge and learning in virtual teams. Finally, an
organization must be both willing and capable of adapting to external and
internal forces of change. These combined lessons form a comprehensive set of
guildeines that can be applied within a learning organization in order to ensure
the organization’s success in continued open communication and learning.
1.
Meister, J.C. (1998). Corporate universities: Lessons in building a
world-class work force, McGraw-Hill, Inc.: United States of America.
2.
Harasim, L. (1996). Online education: The future, in T.M. Harrison & T. Stephen
(Eds.), Computer networking and scholarly communication in the twenty-first
century university, State University of New York Press: United States of
America.
3.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Leidner, D.E. (1998). Communication and trust
in global virtual teams, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(4),
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html.
4.
Rosenberg, M.J. (2001). E-learning:
Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age, McGraw Hill: United States of
America.
5.
Berge, Z.L. (2001). Sustaining distance training: Integrating
learning technologies into the fabric of the enterprise, Jossey-Bass Publishers: San
Francisco.
6.
Jones, N.B. & Laffey, J. (2002). How to facilitate e-collaboration
and e-learning in organizations, in A. Rosset (Ed.), The ASTD e-learning handbook: Best practices,
strategies, and case studies for an emerging field, McGraw-Hill: United
States of America, pp. 251-262.
7.
Driscoll, M. (1998). Web-based training: Using technology to design
adult learning experiences, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer: San Francisco.
8.
Ellsworth, J.B. & Iorizzo, L.J., Jr. (2001). Distance training at the U.S. Army
Intelligence Center, in
Z.L. Berge (Ed.), Sustaining distance training: Integrating learning technologies
into the fabric of the enterprise, Jossey-Bass Publishers: San
Francisco, pp. 31-47.
9.
Friend, N.S. & Hepple, T.L. (2001). Lessons from merging
SBC's regional telecom training centers, in Z.L. Berge (Ed.), Sustaining
distance training: Integrating learning technologies into the fabric of the
enterprise, Jossey-Bass Inc.: United States of America, pp. 48-69.
10.
Treanor, C. & Irwin, J.P. (2001). How MCI WorldCom used the corporate
intranet to train a new-era communications company, in Z.L. Berge (Ed.),
Sustaining distance training: Integrating learning technologies into the fabric
of the enterprise, Jossey-Bass Inc.: United States of America, pp. 70-84.
11.
Dessinger, J.C. & Conley, L. (2001). Beyond the sizzle: Sustaining
distance training for Ford Motor Company dealerships, in Z.L. Berge (Ed.), Sustaining
distance training: Integrating learning technologies into the fabric of the
enterprise, Jossey-Bass Inc.: United States of America, pp. 178-198.
12.
Covey, S.R. (1990). The seven habits of highly effective people: Powerful
lessons in personal change, Fireside: United States of America.
13.
Palloff, R.M. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in
cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom, Jossey-Bass Publishers: San
Francisco.
14.
Birch, P.B. (2002). E-learner competencies, Learning Circuits, 3(7).
Retrieved October 3, 2003 from:
http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/jul2002/birch.htm
15.
Collison, G., Elbaum, B. Haavind, S., & Tinker, R.
(2000). Facilitating
online learning: effective strategies for moderators, Atwood Publishing: Madision, WI.
16.
Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1993-2002). Lessons from the past: Stories about
world-class collaboration. Retrieved August 29, 2003 from:
http://www.virtualteams.com/library/lib_fr.asp.
17.
Burge, E.J. & Roberts, J.M. (1998). Classrooms with a
difference: Facilitating learning on the information highway, Chenelière/McGraw-Hill:
Canada.
18.
Richardson, J.A., Dr. & Turner, A. (2001). Collaborative
learning in the virtual classroom: Lessons learned and a new set of tutor guidelines,
The National Teaching and Learning Forum 10(2), 2-4.
19.
Gamonal, P. (2003). Virtual teamwork: Long distance collaboration. Retrieved
August 29, 2003 from: http://www.ravenwerks.com/Teamwork/virtual.htm.
20.
Codde, JR., Egidio, R.K., Boatwright, KJ., Zahn, J.E.
& Czarnik, R.J. (2001).
Strategic planning for an online distance education program: Driving change
through education at the UAW-DaimlerChrysler National Training Center, in
Z.L. Berge (Ed.), Sustaining distance training: Integrating learning
technologies into the fabric of the enterprise, Jossey-Bass Inc.: United States
of America, pp. 147-163.
21.
Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for
college and university leaders, Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco.
22.
Ravitz, J. (1997). An ISD model for building online communities:
Furthering the dialogue, in Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the
1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology (19th, Albuquerque, NM, February 14-18, 1997).
23.
Larocque, D.L. & Thomas, N. (2001). Making it work in a nontraditional
organization, in
Z.L. Berge (Ed.), Sustaining distance training: Integrating learning
technologies into the fabric of the enterprise, Jossey-Bass Inc.: United States
of America, pp. 106-123.
24.
Volkswagen AutoUni Website (2003). Retrieved October 3, 2003 from:
http://www.autouni.de/english/index.html
25.
Logassi, S. & Gagnebin, P. (2003). Neues transdisziplinäres Hochschulmodell:
Interview mit Walther Ch. Zimmerli, Präsident der VW Auto Uni. Retrieved October 3, 2003 from:
http://www.autouni.de/news_vision.pdf.
26.
Barthold, H.M. (2002). We are pumping the necessary future knowledge
into the company: VW establishes an “AutoUni” in Wolfsburg, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
(267), p. 57. Retrieved October 3, 2003 from:
http://www.autouni.de/english/print/news_faz.html
Lisa M.
Blaschke
Master of
Distance Education (MDE) Graduate Student (University of Maryland University
College)
Kreative Kommunikations, LLC
Im Klipfel 11, 69254
Malsch, Germany