7
© Health Libraries Group 2003 Health Information and Libraries Journal, 20, pp.225 – 231 225 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Working together: supporting projects through action learning* Andrew Booth, Anthea Sutton & Louise Falzon, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Abstract Recent years have seen tremendous growth in knowledge management projects within the NHS. Project staff must acquire rapidly a wide range of task-related skills. Conventional training courses may be inappropriately timed or unavail- able to project staff. Action learning provides a group-based means of meeting skills deficits associated with project management and delivery. This paper describes an action learning set for project staff on five knowledge management projects within Trent Region. A brief evaluation aimed to identify most and least useful and most and least enjoyable features of the action learning set. Comments on the facilitation and the content of the action learning sessions are analysed. Action learning is feasible in meeting the training needs of project staff. It may also provide a means of meeting the shared learning needs of communities of practice within a virtual environment. Knowledge management does not merely involve management and delivery within innovative projects but also requires exploiting shared learning across projects. Introduction Recent years have seen a sustained growth in the number of knowledge management projects within the health service. Stimuli for such projects include the influence of Information for Health, 1 particularly at a local level via Local Implementation Strategies (LIS), the renaissance of clinical librarianship fostered by clinical governance and evidence-based practice, 2 and the imperative for knowledge services to reflect a ‘primary care-led NHS’. 3 Such a drive has thrown a considerable chal- lenge at the feet of healthcare librarians. Many reach senior positions through experience in serv- ice management and delivery. They may not have acquired substantial experience of project man- agement, certainly not through exposure to formal project management techniques. Project manage- ment not only requires a different ‘skill set’ but also demands a markedly different ‘mind-set’. 4 Project management emphasizes deliverables within a limited time-scale while efforts to intro- duce, promote and develop services must be accommodated within a framework for continu- ous evaluation. Such challenges faced by project managers fur- ther extend to project staff, typically recruited on short-term (1–3 years) contracts. Frequently fund- ing results in project staff being employed at a relatively junior professional level. Alternatively, project posts may be filled on secondment by staff, experienced in service delivery, who seek exposure to a project-based work environment. In either case, project staff face a considerable and very steep learning curve. Ironically, the demands of the Correspondence: Andrew Booth, Director of Information Resources and Senior Lecturer, Evidence-based Healthcare Information, School of Health & Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA. E-mail: A.Booth@sheffield.ac.uk *Based on a paper presented at the Health Libraries Group Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, July 2002.

Working together: supporting projects through action learning

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Working together: supporting projects through action learning

© Health Libraries Group 2003

Health Information and Libraries Journal

,

20

, pp.225–231

225

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Working together: supporting projects through action learning*

Andrew

Booth

,

Anthea

Sutton

&

Louise

Falzon

,

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Abstract

Recent years have seen tremendous growth in knowledge management projectswithin the NHS. Project staff must acquire rapidly a wide range of task-relatedskills. Conventional training courses may be inappropriately timed or unavail-able to project staff. Action learning provides a group-based means of meetingskills deficits associated with project management and delivery. This paperdescribes an action learning set for project staff on five knowledge managementprojects within Trent Region. A brief evaluation aimed to identify most andleast useful and most and least enjoyable features of the action learning set.Comments on the facilitation and the content of the action learning sessionsare analysed.

Action learning is feasible in meeting the training needs of project staff. Itmay also provide a means of meeting the shared learning needs of communitiesof practice within a virtual environment. Knowledge management does notmerely involve management and delivery

within

innovative projects but alsorequires exploiting shared learning

across

projects.

Introduction

Recent years have seen a sustained growth in thenumber of knowledge management projectswithin the health service. Stimuli for such projectsinclude the influence of

Information for Health

,

1

particularly at a local level via LocalImplementation Strategies (LIS), the renaissanceof clinical librarianship fostered by clinicalgovernance and evidence-based practice,

2

and theimperative for knowledge services to reflect a‘primary care-led NHS’.

3

Such a drive has thrown a considerable chal-lenge at the feet of healthcare librarians. Manyreach senior positions through experience in serv-

ice management and delivery. They may not haveacquired substantial experience of project man-agement, certainly not through exposure to formalproject management techniques. Project manage-ment not only requires a different ‘skill set’ butalso demands a markedly different ‘mind-set’.

4

Project management emphasizes deliverableswithin a limited time-scale while efforts to intro-duce, promote and develop services must beaccommodated within a framework for continu-ous evaluation.

Such challenges faced by project managers fur-ther extend to project staff, typically recruited onshort-term (1–3 years) contracts. Frequently fund-ing results in project staff being employed at arelatively junior professional level. Alternatively,project posts may be filled on secondment by staff,experienced in service delivery, who seek exposureto a project-based work environment. In eithercase, project staff face a considerable and verysteep learning curve. Ironically, the demands of the

Correspondence: Andrew Booth, Director of Information Resourcesand Senior Lecturer, Evidence-based Healthcare Information, Schoolof Health & Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield,Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA. E-mail:[email protected]

*Based on a paper presented at the Health Libraries Group Conference,Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, July 2002.

Page 2: Working together: supporting projects through action learning

Working together,

Andrew Booth

et al.

© Health Libraries Group 2003

Health Information and Libraries Journal

,

20

, pp.225–231

226

project may make it particularly difficult to findtime to engage with opportunities for continuingprofessional development. Indeed, the opportun-istic nature of much NHS training, at either aregional or national level, may mean that specifictraining events occur either too early or too latewithin the project cycle to be of optimal benefit.Conversely, such events may not even occur at allwithin the limited life-span of a project.

Action learning sets

Approaches to continuing professional develop-ment that may suit the specific needs of projectstaff include distance learning, mentoring andaction learning sets. Distance learning

5

andmentoring

6

are individual-centred approachesthat require access to suitable courses or toexperienced individuals. Where several projectscommence at approximately the same time, it maybe more appropriate to employ a group-led processsuch as action learning.

Action learning is ‘a continuous process oflearning and reflection, supported by colleagues,with the intention of getting things done’.

7

Thepragmatic dimension to this process makes itattractive for busy project-management staffwho cannot afford the ‘luxury’ of ‘just in case’approaches to training. Action learning is thus ‘aprocess which brings people together to find solu-tions to problems and, in doing so, develops boththe individuals and the organization’.

8

It meetstwo particular learning needs of project staff; tolearn

for

the project and to learn

from

the project.In the first case, learning is task-focused in facili-tating the actual progress of the project and thuscontributing to its eventual success. In the secondcase, learning is more strategic in contributing tothe wider professional development of the indivi-duals involved. Indeed, action learning may, as aby-product, augment the evidence base for suchprojects in the future. This final consideration maycounter criticism of healthcare knowledge man-agement projects for being poor at ‘passing thebaton’ by not using one project’s experience toinform the conduct of a subsequent one.

9

Action learning as characterized by Mumford

10

can:

assist others by testing and clarifying ideas;

share ideas on resolving difficulties encounteredby others;

offer information derived from their functionaland managerial experience;

monitor progress;

take charge of the individual and group learning.As will be seen later, these characteristics, iden-

tified from a longer list itemized by Giles,

11

areselected to reflect specific attributes of the TrentEvaluation Action learning Set (TEA-Set).

The Trent Evaluation Action learning Set

In December 2000, the School of Health andRelated Research (ScHARR) at the University ofSheffield was invited by the Trent Information andLibraries Development Service (ILDS) to evaluatefive innovative knowledge management projectswithin the Region. The five projects comprisedthree primary care knowledge-management pro-jects (in Leicester, Nottingham and Rotherham),an evidence-based gateway project (SEEK inSheffield) and a clinical librarian project inLeicester. Details of the evaluation itself (the5

KM

evaluation) will be published separately.However, it was recognized from an early stagethat an action learning set could yield significantbenefits to the Evaluation and to the projectsthemselves:

1

Experience from the REALISE project (North-ern and Yorkshire Region), identified a need forshared learning between projects to complementmore routine monitoring and review.

12

2

Many project staff were relatively inexperiencedor had little prior familiarity with a project man-agement role.

3

Although the evaluation project manager (LF)had previously participated in the REALISEevaluation, the Trent evaluation constituted herfirst experience of project management.

4

Similarly, the evaluation project assistant (AS),a recent graduate from an information studiesdepartment, had not previously participated ina funded project.

5

Finally, the would-be facilitator of the actionlearning set (AB) was contractually responsiblefor the Evaluation and needed a relatively unob-trusive way of maintaining contact with theprojects and monitoring the progress of the

Page 3: Working together: supporting projects through action learning

Working together,

Andrew Booth

et al.

© Health Libraries Group 2003

Health Information and Libraries Journal

,

20

, pp.225–231

227

Evaluation itself. Facilitation of action learningwas an area that he wished to develop, being anoticeable omission from his portfolio of small-group facilitation.These were the internal drivers for proposing an

action learning set. An additional external driver,within the context of evidence-based librarian-ship, was an account from West Midlands, whichdemonstrated that action learning could be appro-priate for cross-organizational learning on aregional basis.

11

The commissioner of the Evalua-tion, Peter Baker, the Regional Librarian, agreedto include action learning as an additional mecha-nism for evaluation. Facilitation was offeredwithin the context of the facilitator’s personaldevelopment, but with the funded evaluationproject assistant acting as a resource to supportthe learning sets.

It was decided to meet approximately every4–6 weeks at venues around the project sites. Meet-ings took place on a Friday afternoon and typi-cally lasted two- to two-and-a-half hours. The firstmeeting took place in June 2001 and meetings con-tinued for 1 year. The final two meetings occurredafter this period and focused on the evaluationitself, together with plans for dissemination, andtherefore are not included as formal action learn-ing events. Throughout the life of the learning set,new staff, particularly in support roles, joined theoriginal learning set members. Table 1 shows themaximum numbers of staff involved from the fivesites and the evaluation team.

Format and content of action learning sessions

Each meeting took a topic, previously identified

by members of the learning set, and addressedmaterials prepared by the facilitator. This con-tinuing professional development componentwas preceded by updates from each site andfrom the evaluation team. In addition, there wasan information sharing slot for new resources ortraining opportunities.

Typically, participants worked in small groupsto address a problem or situation posed by eithera real or realistic problem-based scenario. Onsome occasions participants worked within theirproject teams, for example, when preparing a bidfor continued funding for their project. Moreusually, however, members from different teamsworked together thus allowing problem sharingwithin the small group and, then again, duringfeedback within a concluding plenary. Materialsused by the facilitator included training materialsadapted from another context or materials tailor-made for this purpose. On occasions the facilitatorcontacted an external expert for advice and input.So, for example, a session on preparing a bid forService and Financial Framework (SaFF) fund-ing, was compiled with assistance from a formercolleague now working in that process. An abbre-viated sample scenario is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Topics covered by the sessions included an ini-tial session on Roles and Expectations, Informa-tion needs (Questionnaires/Interviews), Web design,Obtaining funding, Evaluation, Stakeholdersand Marketing. Topics were usually identified atthe end of each preceding session, thus givingthe facilitator sufficient time for preparation.However, on occasions sessions were selected froma prioritized list or through a formal e-mail votingprocess.

Table 1 Staff involved in Trent Evaluation Action learning Set.

Project Staff

Leicester Clinical Librarian projects Project manager and three clinical librariansLeicester Primary and Community Care project Project manager, librarian and assistantNottingham Primary Care project Project manager, librarian and assistantRotherham Primary Care project Project manager and librarianSheffield SEEK gateway project Project manager and librarianEvaluation team Project manager (LF) and project assistant (AS)Facilitator Set adviser—AB

Page 4: Working together: supporting projects through action learning

Working together,

Andrew Booth

et al.

© Health Libraries Group 2003

Health Information and Libraries Journal

,

20

, pp.225–231

228

Evaluation of action learning sets

Although the action learning sets were not forma-lly funded, the evaluation team observed goodpractice in conducting a brief evaluation of theprogramme. A three-page questionnaire was pro-duced and sent to each participant. Question-naires were completed anonymously, although theevaluation assistant used an allocation schedule toidentify non-respondents. This ensured a 100%completion rate from those who had participatedfrom the inception of the action learning set. Thequestionnaire asked about:

the most and least enjoyable sessions;

the most and least useful sessions;

the effect of the sessions on personal and organ-izational development;

observations and improvements regarding thefrequency, format and duration of the sessions;

the role of the facilitator;

general improvements and future topics forinclusion in the programme.Analysis was conducted independently by a

project secretary and aggregated data only waspassed to the facilitator for comment and review,keeping the facilitator separate from the process ofanalysis.

Results

The ‘Most enjoyable’ sessions were Web Design(three votes), Obtaining Funding (see above) (twovotes), and Identifying and managing Stake-holders (two votes) while the ‘Least enjoyable’sessions were the Initial session on Roles (twovotes), Identifying and managing stakeholders(two votes), Web design (one vote), ObtainingFunding (one vote) and Evaluation (one vote).Clearly, enjoyment of the sessions involved acomplex interplay of factors where personalpreferred learning styles play a key part.

The ‘Most useful’ sessions were ObtainingFunding (five votes), Evaluation (two votes) andStakeholders (two votes) while the ‘Least useful’was that on Web design (four votes) with mostother sessions receiving one vote. It appears thatuseful sessions had to be closely related to theimmediate tasks of the project, as opposed to moregeneral learning needs, and the timing of sessionsto match current work in progress was critical.This was a challenge, as the projects were on dif-ferent project timescales. Usefulness and enjoy-ment were not necessarily linked; for example, theinnovative Web design session was ‘Most enjoy-able’ for three participants and yet ‘Least useful’ forfour participants. Even the Obtaining funding ses-sion, notwithstanding its ‘Most enjoyable’ ratingby two participants and ‘Most useful’ rating byfive, attracted singular ‘Least enjoyable’ and ‘Leastuseful’ ratings.

Participants identified the contribution ofthe action learning to their own professionaldevelopment:

Helps to think through processes … to keep intouch with others in the region.

Meeting with all the other exciting, innovativeprojects and working together to solve problemsand find solutions has improved my communi-cation skills and my overall confidence in theproject …

Benefits of cross-project working.

Opportunity to step back from the project, see itthrough another perspective.Participants frequently observed that the action

learning sets had contributed to the developmentof their projects:

A great deal. Areas/points discussed have beenutilized in my project. Networking and progressreports … has developed ideas to be utilized inmy project.

Opportunity to share ideas with otherprojects.

Figure 1 Sample scenario—preparing an SaFF bid

Page 5: Working together: supporting projects through action learning

Working together,

Andrew Booth

et al.

© Health Libraries Group 2003

Health Information and Libraries Journal

,

20

, pp.225–231

229

Test our assumptions against other profes-sionals’ ideas/views, although this was notunanimous.

Not really put into practice any things … learntor had already implemented things before thesession—e.g. already had web page up and run-ning by time of session.The most useful features of the action learning

process

, as opposed to

content

, invariably includedthe ‘networking’ and frequently included ‘cross-project working’. Attitudes towards the problem-based learning technique used to direct the sessions(3 Most useful, 5 Least useful), the plenary groupfeedback at the end of each session (5 Most useful,3 Least useful) and the facilitation role (2 Mostuseful, 1 Least useful) were more equivocal.Similarly, participants were split on the usefulness(2 Most useful, 1 Least useful) of ‘Topics identifiedby the group’.

As the action learning approach was experi-mental, two questions challenged specific assump-tions about the process. As a previous evaluationconducted by the Evaluation team had primarilyemployed information-sharing sessions instead ofaction learning,

12

participants were asked if theywould have preferred this more conventional typeof session. Four respondents said that they wouldhave preferred straight information sharing ses-sions but seven said they would not. Participantswere also asked about the extent to which the facili-tator had kept his facilitation role separate fromhis, albeit indirect, role in the evaluation. Sevenparticipants felt that the facilitation had been‘About right’. Five felt that the facilitation was‘Not enough evaluation focused’ while none feltthat it had been ‘Too evaluation focused’.

Suggestions on improving the opportunitiesafforded by the action learning included:

more time for chatting—[rare] chance to meetwith colleagues;

have structured … sessions on key topics atbeginning;

more flexible discussion networking [later];

sessions … excellent—facilitated in friendly andnon-threatening way;

good mix of group work and business agendaitems;

change to … information exchange meetings—arrange visits … ;

too rushed at end—needs summary of lessonslearnt or actions to be taken;

going round table … necessary evil—earlier ses-sions felt more competitive but later … not asmuch.

Discussion

Although numbers of responses are too small forstatistical significance, they support several obser-vations. Firstly, preferences for sessions withregard to most and least enjoyable and most andleast useful are fairly heterogeneous. The programmeclearly had something for everyone. Secondly,there did not seem to be a clear relationshipbetween enjoyment and usefulness of the sessions.

Participants’ observations on their personaldevelopment resonate with objectives identified byMumford.

10

Participants’ responses, valuing inputfrom others and ‘protected time’ to ‘think throughprocesses’, ‘to step back from the project’ and ‘seeit through another perspective’, evoke ‘reflectionon action’ as identified by Schon.

13

Opportunitiesto network meet affective needs for support, a safeenvironment and confidence building and cogni-tive needs for ‘new information’ and ‘supportmaterials’. Outcomes should be made immediatelyapplicable to the situation ‘back in the office’.Although ‘theory’ was kept to a minimum, manu-factured scenarios may impede implementation—an overly specific scenario might alienate someprojects whereas an excessively generic one mightfail to engage participants. Timing of the sessionswas also critical. Democratic selection of topicsinevitably meant that those at the vanguard or therearguard of developments within a specific topicarea might find the timing inappropriate.

Different features of the action learningengaged different participants for different rea-sons. The problem-based learning approach kepttasks focused and resisted tendencies to becomean abstract ‘talk-shop’, but not everyone wasengaged by this format.

The role of the facilitator is central in participa-tive action contexts.

14

It was challenging to bal-ance managing the process and managing thecontent of the sessions. The ‘sameness’ of the smallgroup-plenary dynamics employed, notwithstand-ing different topics, has stimulated the facilitator

Page 6: Working together: supporting projects through action learning

Working together,

Andrew Booth

et al.

© Health Libraries Group 2003

Health Information and Libraries Journal

,

20

, pp.225–231

230

to identify supplementary groupwork techniques.

15

The differing strategic, operational and tacticalrequirements of staff working at different levelswithin the project hierarchy—project manager,project officer and project assistant—inevitablyled to variable responses to the evaluation.

Probably the greatest challenge was managingthe information exchange, the business meetingand the groupwork components within a two-and-a-half-hour session. It would have been helpful toensure ‘closure’ by tying up the lessons learnt andto spend more time planning subsequent sessions.In practice, the ‘round the project sites’ or ‘evalu-ation progress report’ sessions were frequentlycurtailed and occasionally omitted.

Conclusions

Even such a perfunctory evaluation reveals thatthe action learning set offered different things todifferent people. Variability of topics, levels andprior experience provided challenges that makethe overall positive tenor of feedback soremarkable. In retrospect, on the one hand, it wasnot helpful to allow the action learning set to beconfused with the evaluation—a completelyneutral facilitator would enhance the actionlearning process by suspending their criticalfaculties for the duration of this ‘protected time’.On the other hand it was useful, in terms of bothformal communication and interpersonal rela-tions, for the evaluation team to participate in thegroupwork, particularly given their relative inex-perience of project work.

Some limitations of the action learning setstem from its being almost the sole conduit forcommunication for knowledge-sharing between theprojects. Although the three primary care know-ledge management projects arranged auxiliaryvisits and meetings, it would have been helpful tohave complemented the action learning with morenetworking and information exchange opportuni-ties and even site visits. It was also difficult to meet,simultaneously, the respective needs of differentlevels of staff—manager, project officer, andassistant—and to establish a balance between theproblem solving, information sharing and skillsacquisition components of the programme. Finally,future facilitation will use more-enhanced ima-

ginative and experimental methods in deliveringcourse materials.

Effective knowledge management (KM)involves, not only the delivery of successful KMprojects, but also the sharing of lessons betweenprojects.

16,17

Internet technologies, using eithersynchronous or asynchronous communication,open up future prospects for virtual action learn-ing sets to facilitate group, or indeed, corporateproblem-solving.

18

Such shared learning can oper-ate at an interorganizational level, as in the case ofthe Trent Evaluation Action learning Set, or evenwithin the same organization. Indeed, actionlearning sets might be seen as a feasible mecha-nism for implementing the concept of the ‘commu-nity of practice’:

a group of people of different skill sets, develop-ment histories and experience backgrounds whowork together to achieve commonly shared goals …often informal groupings within and betweenorganizations.

19

Appropriately enough, the last word belongs toone of the participants who concluded:

The sessions have been really helpful in managingour own project. See what others are doing andwhere it is different. An important spin-off to theevaluation which I had not initially envisaged.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance andsupport of staff at all five of the Trent Evaluationproject sites, of Peter Baker, the regional libra-rian, and of Marilyn Tinsley for processing thequestionnaires.

References

1 NHS Executive.

Information for Health: an Information Strategy for the Modern NHS 1998–2005, a National Strategy for Local Implementation

. London: Department of Health, 2001.

2 Ward, L. M., Honeybourne, C. J. & Harrison, J. A clinical librarian can support clinical governance.

British Journal of Clinical Governance

2001,

6

, 248–51.3 Lacey Bryant, S. Information services for primary care: the

organizational culture of General Practice and the

Page 7: Working together: supporting projects through action learning

Working together,

Andrew Booth

et al.

© Health Libraries Group 2003

Health Information and Libraries Journal

,

20

, pp.225–231

231

information needs of partnerships and Primary Care Groups.

Health Libraries Review

1999

16

157–65.4 Martin, V. Managing performance. In: Martin V. (ed.)

Managing Projects in Health and Social Care

. London: Routledge, 2002: 133–45.

5 Urquhart, C., Chambers, M., Connor, S., Lewis, L., Murphy, J., Roberts, R. & Thomas, R. Evaluation of distance learning delivery of health information management and health informatics programmes: a UK perspective.

Health Information Libraries Journal

2002,

19

, 146–57.

6 Ritchie, A. & Genoni, P. Mentoring in professional associations: continuing professional development for librarians.

Health Libraries Review

1999,

16

, 216–25.7 McGill, I. & Beaty, L.

Action Learning

, 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page, 1995.

8 Inglis, S.

Making the Most of Action Learning

. London: Gower, 1994.

9 Falzon, L. & Booth, A. REALISE-ing their potential? Implementing local library projects to support evidence-based health care.

Health Information Libraries Journal

2001,

18

, 65–74.10 Mumford, A. Effective learners in action learning sets.

Employee Counselling Today

1996, 8(6), 5–12.11 Giles, G. Report on accreditation learning sets in the West

Midlands Region of the NHS. Health Libraries Review 2000, 17, 181–8.

12 Booth, A. & Falzon, L. Evaluating information service innovations in the health service: ‘If I was planning on going there I wouldn’t start from here’. Health Informatics Journal, 2001, 7, 13–9.

13 Schon, D. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Avebury: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 1991.

14 Harvey, G., Loftus-Hills, A., Rycroft-Malone, J., Titchen, A., Kitson, A., McCormack, B. & Seers, K. Getting evidence into practice: the role and function of facilitation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2002, 37, 577–88.

15 Elwyn, G, Greenhalgh, T, & Macfarlane, F. Groups: a guide to small group work in healthcare, management, education and research. Oxford: Radcliffe, 2001.

16 Ahmed, P. K., Kok, L. K. & Loh, A. Y. E. Learning Through Knowledge Management. London: Butterworth Heinemann, 2002.

17 Disterer, G. Management of project knowledge and experiences. Journal of Knowledge Management 2002, 6, 512–20.

18 Booth, A. Managing knowledge for clinical excellence: ten building blocks. Journal of Clinical Excellence 2001, 3, 187–94.

19 Turner, C. What are ‘Communities of practice’. In: Senge P. (ed.) The Dance of Change: the Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organisations. London: Nicholas Brearley Publishing, 1999.