A & F Ltd.: Integrating Learning into Mashup Implementations
I. Introduction
Organizations are learning differently. Compared to a conventional model by which individuals, work groups and whole organizations used to learn new business processes, current business practice has opened up new potentials for company-wide learning enabled by ICT platforms and applications. The growing collaboration, communication and sharing learning (and fun) experiences in current business practice is, indeed, both evolutionary and revolutionary. The learning behavior of operating businesses is evolutionary by phasing out older modes of learning (e.g. formal professional development, meetings and water cooler chats) and implementing similar platforms and applications (e.g. interactive, collaborative, user-friendly wikis). Thus, by adopting a humanistic approach to implementing interaction and collaboration platforms and applications, current business practice can be said to be evolutionary. In contrast, by "streaming" collaboration and communication within and across work groups (i.e. eliminating barriers to communication and collaboration such as lack of proper channels), enabling "instant" communication (e.g. e-mail client messaging) and eliminating conventional organizational hierarchies, current business practice, enabled by commercial and open source platforms and applications, can be said to be revolutionary. For current purposes, integrating learning into mashup offerings is a central focus by which evolutionary (i.e. learning) and revolutionary aspects in current business practice are reconciled. This approach, which offers a workable solution to a challenge, a common one in fact, arisen from Phil's and Benny's conflicting views about applying open source collaborative platforms and applications in different business and non-for-profit contexts via A & F Ltd. To reconcile both (conflicting) views, a closer look is required into how Phil's conceptualization of learning, informed by his background as an instructor and Benny's drive for workable and practical solutions for businesses, informed by his background as web developer. This involves an examination of conceptual frameworks of learning at organizations and collaborative and communication offerings used in practical, business contexts. This paper aims, hence, to explore potentials of open source platforms and applications, particularly intranets, in initiating, developing and enhancing organizational learning in current business practice.
This paper is made up of three sections in addition to Introduction: (1) Learning Organizations and Mashup Implementations: Challenges & Solutions, (2) Integrating Learning & Mashup: Proposed Apps & Functionalities, and (3) Proposed Apps & Functionalities in Theory. The "Learning Organizations and Mashup Implementations: Challenges & Solutions" section offers an in-depth analysis of current business dilemma as represented by Phil's and Benny's conflicting views and, in response, offers workable solutions. The " Integrating Learning & Mashup: Proposed Apps & Functionalities" section proposes a number of platforms and applications which A & F Ltd. can adopt in order not only to implement solutions offered in last section but also to offer further insights into how platform and application propositions can help enhance collaboration and communication, both salient in current business practice. The "Proposed Apps & Functionalities in Theory" section offers a conceptual framework of proposed platforms and applications in last section. This section aims to seat practice in proper theoretical context.
II. Learning Organizations and Mashup Implementations: Challenges & Solutions
The question of learning organizations, emphasized by Phil, is not a novelty. As noted above, organizations have always adopted means to convey knowledge within and across business units as well as from one generation to another, particularly for long established companies in which staff, old and new, continue to inform one another on different practices. The conventional learning process is, as noted above, is proving increasingly irrelevant in current business practice. Instead, interactive, collaborative and open source platforms and applications, enabled by ICT innovations and increasing integration of business and "social" practices at work (line separating both is becoming, in fact, increasingly blurred), have come to define learning practices in current business practice, an observation Phil and Benny must have studied in depth prior to founding A & F Ltd. which is dedicated, after all, to enabling learning in different organizations, albeit in a still unresolved manner as shown by company's founders.
The need for and process of learning in organizations is, indeed, a well established concept in literature. Needless to emphasize, means to maximize learning practices in a given organizational context only differ from conventional learning models to ICT-enabled ones as well as from one organization to another. For example, in order to ensure learning in an organizational context is properly initiated, developed, maintained and sustained, findings show that supportive learning environment, concrete learning processes and practices, and leadership behavior that provides reinforcement (Garvin, Edmondson & Gino, 2008 ) are critical factors. These factors are particularly applicable to A & F Ltd.
In supportive learning environment area, A & F Ltd faces a raison d'être challenge. This is evident in conflicting views of company's founders of what and how learning should be instated in an organizational context. This challenge can be overcome, as shown shortly, by better reconciliation of learning and mashups.
In concrete learning processes and practices, A & F Ltd's promise to roll out collaborative and communication platforms and applications for different organizations is faced by a definition problem. That is, if learning can be well defined both conceptually and practically, identifying working, if not optimal, mashups for different business needs would be a straightforward job.
In and leadership behavior that provides reinforcement, Phil and Benny need to go an extra mile beyond offering of collaboration and communication platforms and applications. More specifically, Phil and Benny need to emphasize that learning cannot be initiated, let alone shared and sustained, by mere implementation. Instead, company mangers and leaders need to promote organizational learning not based on mashups but using mashups as well as any set of collaboration and communication workflows. Thus, Phil and Benny need to play a consultant's role after service sales. This role is not an extra Phil and Benny offer as a bonus for customers but is, in fact, an integral component of service offering namely, an after-sales service which further differentiates product and service offerings by A & F Ltd from competitors, existing and potential.
In essence, A & F Ltd. faces a basic challenge of offering value-differentiated collaboration and communication product / service offerings which combine proper learning enablers and practical, user-accepted mashups. Learning and user-friendly and accepted mashups are, accordingly, variables which Phil and Benny are required to reconcile in order to roll out working, if not optimum, solutions for different businesses. As shown in next sections, specific features in specific open source intranets and work schedulers are apt to bring views of company's founders into a more working approach.
III. Integrating Learning & Mashup: Proposed Apps & Functionalities
Two collaboration and communication applications, given current business practice, emerge as most salient: work schedulers and interactivity. The "work schedulers" applications refer to applications adopted in organizational setups in order to plan, develop and prioritize work schedules across different business functions in order to enhance performance by slashing out request processing periods, if not costs. The "interactivity" applications refer to applications adopted in organizational setups in order to help enhance collaboration and communicate on within and across work groups in different business units, departments and sectors. The remainder of current section discusses specific features of specific platforms / applications for each application category.
III. I. Work Schedulers
Two main applications / platforms are of particular interest as far as work schedulers are concerned: iCalendar and BMS Track Record. Each offering is apt to reconcile learning and mashup conflict manifest in views of A & F Ltd's founders.
Notably, iCalendar is an outcome of collaboration between rival companies: IBM and Microsoft (https://icalendar.org/). The most important contribution of iCalendar to work scheduling practices is enabling interoperability across different services and devices including, for example, web site calendar services, smart phones and tablets. The most recent update to iCalendar, i.e. RFC 7986, published in 2016, enable even more collaborative and communication applications such as conferencing system services, importing and synchronizing events on different platforms in addition to web applications such as include Microsoft Office 365, Apple Calendar, Google Calendar, and Yahoo Calendar (https://icalendar.org/). Moreover, iCalendar's most recent update includes name ("Name Property," n.d.), description ("Description Property," n.d.) and Universally Unique Identifier (UID) ("UID Property," n.d.) properties which enable multiple language parameter values for name and description properties and more security and privacy for UID property, respectively. The iCalendar, particularly in most recent update, offers, in current situation, more collaboration options, using multiple languages (an important variable in a culturally / linguistically diverse workplace) and, more significantly, more security and privacy (a significant variable, particularly for cloud-based service offerings).
For BMS Track Record, a commercial work scheduler offering, differ product offerings provide different work scheduling and prioritizations options for different user / business needs. Notably, Snap Schedule is a basic work scheduling software which enhances reporting capabilities and is designed in order to better suit needs of Microsoft Office® users ("Snap Schedule," 2014). The Snap Schedule Premium offering is more enhanced work scheduler software, deployable on-premise or in cloud, providing multi0user access and addresses more complex and data-intensive needs of bigger enterprises ("Snap Schedule Premium," n.d.). The Business Appointment Manager offering is similar to iCalendar but is more customized to cater for needs of different stakeholders to schedule people, rooms, equipment, and resources in user-friendly interfaces ("Business Appointment Manager," n.d.).
Both scheduling platforms / applications, i.e. iCalendar and BMS Track Record can be used separately or in combination depending on each organization's financial resources and user needs.
III. II. Interactivity Applications
Three interactivity platforms / applications are of particular interest as far as open source intranets are concerned: Xwiki, MangoApps, and Papyrs. The Xwiki, Second Generation, is an enhanced collaborative application by which web applications can be created, as opposed to Xwiki, First Generation, which is, primarily, a content management collaboration platform ("Second Generation Wiki," 2016). The MangoApps, a commercial offering, is a social interaction enabler allowing users / workers to author entries and blog ("Social Intranet Overview," n.d.) and hence reinvent communication space on a peer-to-peer basis as opposed to more conventional corporate communication strategies. The Papyrs offering is similar to MangoApps and is recommended for smaller businesses given simplicity of incorporated features / functionalities as well as fairly simple social networking options which better suit smaller work groups (https://stunf.com/).
The following section places above applications in to a proper conceptual framework for better understanding of collaboration and communication platforms and applications in a broader applicability context.
IV. Proposed Apps & Functionalities in Theory
Planning and scheduling have become established areas in more complex and less certain industries (McKay, Safayeni & Buzacott, 1995). In manufacturing, for example, computer-based systems are shown to increase productivity and responsiveness (Crawford, MacCarthy, Wilson & Vernon, 1999). In current situation, A & F Ltd. has both limitless opportunities as well as major challenges in offering collaboration and communication product / service offerings for an increasingly complex, dynamic and interactive workplace. The opportunities include, most primarily, growing needs, across different industries and practices, for collaboration and interactivity tools. The different background of both founders can, accordingly, be an asset as each contributes his own vision to further enhance product / service roll-outs to different businesses. On another hand, one major challenge stands out namely, integrating different collaboration and communication offerings along different dimensions (e.g. commercial / open source, standardized / customized or full-scale / partial implementation).
The interactivity and social networking feature of communication and collaboration platforms / applications, as in open source intranets, is, equally established in literature, particularly as intra- and inter-organizational communication and collaboration efforts continue to inform current business practice (Tredinnick, 2006; Feller, Finnegan, Fitzgerald & Hayes, 2008). In current situation, Xwiki, MangoApps, and Papyrs are of particular significance for A & F Ltd.
As A & F Ltd seeks to establish herself as a reliable product / service vendor, development business partnerships in areas of procurement and supply are particularly important in order not only to enhance company's chain value by expanding her vendor / supplier network but also to enhance her market positioning in different geographical spreads as needs for blended interactivity within and across organizations grow.
References
Business Appointment Manager. (n.d.). BMSCentral. Retrieved from http://www.bmscentral.com/products/bam/overview.aspx
Crawford, S., MacCarthy, B. L., Wilson, J. R., & Vernon, C. (1999). Investigating the Work of Industrial Schedulers through Field Study. Cognition, Technology & Work, 1(2), 63–77. Springer Link. 10.1007/s101110050033
Description Property. (n.d.). iCalendar. Retrieved from https://icalendar.org/New-Properties-for-iCalendar-RFC-7986/5-2-description-property.html
Feller, J., Finnegan, P., Fitzgerald, B., & Hayes, J. (2008). From Peer Production to Productization: A Study of Socially Enabled Business Exchanges in Open Source Service Networks. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 475 – 493. Informs. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0207
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008 March). Is Yours a Learning Organization? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization
McKay, K. N., Safayeni, F. R., & Buzacott, J. A. (1995). Schedulers & Planners: What and How Can We Learn From Them. In D. E. Brown & W. T. Scherer (Eds.), Intelligent Scheduling Systems (pp. 41-62). New York, NY: Springer US. Springer Link. 10.1007/978-1-4615-2263-8_2
Second Generation Wiki. (2016, May 27). Xwiki. Retrieved from http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/SecondGenerationWiki
Snap Schedule Premium. (n.d.). BMSCentral. Retrieved from http://www.bmscentral.com/products/sspremium/overview.aspx
Snap Schedule. (2014, August 18). BMSCentral. Retrieved from http://www.bmscentral.com/products/schedule/overview.aspx
Social Intranet Overview. (n.d.). MangoApps. Retrieved from https://www.mangoapps.com/products/intranet/overview
Tredinnick, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and Business: A pointer to the intranets of the future? Business Information Review, 23(4). Sage Journals. 10.1177/0266382106072239
