CHAPTER SIX:
LEARNING ORGANIZATION[*]

• Purpose of the Learning Organization
• Process of Developing New Designs for the Learning Organization
• Connecting the Learning Organization to Previous Elements in Design Process
• Key Concepts Regarding the Learning Organization
• Design Specifications for the Learning Organization
• New Designs for the Learning Organization
• Summary

First we need to clear up what might be an initial confusion in the use of the term, learning organization. The reference is not to learning organization in the sense used by authors such as Senge (1990). Rather, our intent is to refer to the organization for learning in the TYI with the organizing being supportive of the learning context; learning signature; learning outcomes; and, specifically, the learning process specifications already set forth in NDTYI. When considering what dimensions of an educational institution can be organized, the typical dimensions that come to mind are the organization of students, time and time schedules, learning settings (i.e., on or off campus), staff, learning processes (i.e., pedagogical arrangements and infrastructure), and decisionmaking. Organizational attention might also go to technology, resource allocation, and functions within the institutions (e.g., admissions, guidance, instruction, placement, institutional development).

With this said, the idea of learning organization in the Senge sense will be given attention in this section because learning organization with this meaning is a good backdrop for organizing learning in NDTYI. It models the dynamics in organizing for learning that we have in mind.

Purpose of the Learning Organization

The purpose of the learning organization element in the design process is to address the structure and infrastructure of the TYI to ensure that it is aligned with and supportive of the other elements of the design process, particularly those elements that have already been addressed. In turn, the design specifications for the learning organization will have direct implications for the design process elements to follow such as learning partnerships, learning staff, and learning environment. It is at this point in the design process that the reality of the degree of change that will be required to work effectively in the projected learning context and with the recommended learning signature, outcomes, and process becomes apparent. With the design specifications for learning process, some feeling of the change is noticeable, but many of these concepts are already part of the higher education rhetoric and jargon. Now as the organization for learning comes into focus in response to seriously supporting the envisioned specifications for learning process, those involved in the planning and operating of institutions begin to see that they will face major changes.

At this point, the educational designers and stakeholders have at least two clear options: (1) keep going and map out the design specifications for learning organization with the idea that what has come before is really true and the organizational changes are only speaking more of the truth; or (2) go back and alter the design specifications for learning context, signature, outcomes, and process as really not needed. The learning organization element of the design process will take the first option and is used to provide guidance to the organization of time, students, staff, learning process, learning settings, decisionmaking, technology, facilities, and governance.

Process of Developing New Designs for the Learning Organization

As with the learning process element of the design process, the design specifications for learning organization were developed on the basis of a review of literature and best practice, a focus group interview with TYI staff at DeKalb Community College in Atlanta, and discussions by the National Design Group. The literature review is presented under the later heading of "Key Concepts Regarding the Learning Organization." Highlights from the focus group interview and National Design Group discussions are presented in this section.

Focus Group Findings

The focus group interview which dealt with learning organization was held at DeKalb Community College in Atlanta, Georgia. DeKalb Community College has three campuses serving the downtown and suburban areas of Atlanta. The interview was done with about 20 members of the faculty, student services staff, and administrative staff. The group was split into two small groups, and the interviews were done simultaneously by two members of the NDTYI staff. The lead question for the interview asked the group to think about times when they felt learning was really going on and then to describe how things were organized to support the learning. Indications that learning was taking place were as follows:

• When teaching and learning began to blur and I as teacher was both learning and teaching.
• When the focus of learning was real (e.g., doing pro-bono legal work representing real people).
• When there was the opportunity to apply learning.
• When learning was timed to when it was really needed.
• When students had a role in deciding what was to be learned and how it was to be learned.
• When students are not afraid to take the risk and speak out concerning their own concerns and views.
• When students get immediate feedback.
• When students have access to concrete examples of what they are learning about.
• When students did research.
• When the time schedule was open ended (e.g., Socratic method used).
• When students saw connections of learning to their lives.
• When it was realized that learning can occur anywhere.
• When the learning was very personal, one person at a time.
• When the learning was recognized by the learner--they got immediate feedback.
• When students worked in small groups and helped each other.
• When students could learn at their own pace and schedule--not locked into time constraints.
• When there was a lot of demonstration and coaching by the teacher.
• When the lines between real courses (during the day) and continuing education courses were blurred.
• When staff were connected across the disciplines--when we worked together with a unified approach.
• When we started with projects, and students produced tangible products.
• When we were sensitive to cultural differences.
• When staff development occurred across the whole staff.
• When faculty and students had ready access to technology for all curricular areas.
• When the faculty acts more as a coach.
• When students are comfortable in terms of access to refreshments and seating.
• When students take responsibility for their learning.
• When the community is involved in the learning experience.
• When students feel they are part of a "family" of other learners.

National Design Group Discussions

A major portion of one of the National Design Group meetings was devoted to a discussion of learning organization, and later meetings were used to review drafts of the design specifications for learning organization. The major ideas and suggestions that emerged in the discussions were as follows:

• There are benefits from co-learning by teachers and students.
• Students should be involved in developing the learning process.
• We should shift from fixed time and variable achievement to variable time and common achievement of mastery; time must be viewed as resource and not a constraint.
• Before putting up new buildings, we need to take care of what we have and explore more joint use of existing spaces in the community--leveraging other facilities. There simply are no more resources to build new space.
• Do we need a place called a college with the advances in distance learning and technology? Learning need not be fixed in time or place with current information technology.
• Some students need the protection and sense of place given by a college campus.
• There must be many ways to go about learning.
• There should be rewards for learning.
• A mix of diverse people contribute to learning.
• It is important to carefully monitor student progress and provide a strategy to support students when support is needed.
• Learning in the context of application has value.
• Cooperative learning is important.
• Students should pay for achievement of learning outcomes, not time spent in courses.
• It is fundamental that the technical and academic areas be integrated organizationally--be part of one system.
• There is a need to capture and support both formal and informal learning.
• There is a need to institutionalize collaboration inside the college and externally with the community.
• There is a need for "charter" colleges, where new forms of learning organization can be developed and tested.

The ideas from the focus group interviews and National Design Group discussions were used to shape an initial draft of design specifications for learning organization in TYIs. The draft specifications were then reviewed by the National Design Group at a later meeting.

Connecting the Learning Organization
to Previous Elements in Design Process

The preceding steps in the design process have set the stage for a transformation of the TYI. The design specifications for learning organization suggest fundamental changes in the organization, operation, and management of higher education. We can see the signposts of change in the organization of learning in each of the design specifications for the previous design element--the learning context, signature, outcomes, and process. The learning organization must be fitted to the design context for TYIs described by the concepts of imaginative, directive, responsive, collaborative, accountable, and resourced. Taking responsive as an example, the organization of learning must be attuned to the goal of accessibility in terms of cost, time, learning style, age, geographic location, readiness, and ethnicity:

• Alignment with learning signature means, for example, helping to project an image of the institution that reinforces its chosen identity: Alignment with learning outcomes on one dimension means reaching for educational excellence that provides challenge and opportunities.
  
  
• It results in learning products that improve the community: For the learning organization to support this process specification, learning must be organized in close concert with the needs of the community and provide easy opportunity to actually produce significant product.
  
  
• It is linked to internal and external standards: Learning organization that is aligned with internal and external standards will mean opportunities to involve those who know and assess the standards. For external standards, this will mean a role for community-based evaluators and opportunity to demonstrate competence in real work, family, and community settings.
  
  
• It applies continuous assessment to improve learning: This process specification means that learning will need to be organized so that feedback on progress is continuous and is communicated and taken seriously by those responsible for the design of the learning process.
  
  
• It is personalized to the needs and prior experiences of each and every learner: Organization of learning to meet this learning process expectation means careful initial and ongoing assessment of each learner, development of individual learning plans with the learner actively involved in developing the plan, and learning organized to be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of a diverse array of individuals.
  
  
• It provides multiple pathways to reach learning outcomes: Learning organization will need to move away from the expectation that one or even a few paths to success are sufficient. Learning organization will need to be more like a complex pathway system with multiple routes and good signage to various destinations.
  
  
• It builds the self-esteem of each learner: Learning organization will need to bring students into the learning process at places where they can be successful and provide immediate reinforcement when and wherever learning occurs.
  
  
• It is managed by learners in consultation with learning staff: Learners will need to play an active role in organizing learning to meet their needs.
  
  
• It employs collaborative learning in problem solving: Learning will need to be organized so that students have ample opportunities to collaborate and develop problem-solving skills.
  
  
• It creates strong sense of learning community: Organization of learning must be planned with the attributes of community building in mind. That is a strong sense of caring for each other, a shared set of values, and opportunities to know and develop trust in one another.
  
  
• It engages the learner in inquiry (research) and knowledge construction: Learning must be organized so that students are involved in constructing knowledge much more frequently. This demands flexible time, access to learning resources, and opportunities for feedback and reflection. And the institution must begin to think of its role and mission in research and service along with teaching.
  
  
• It is linked to the global information network: Learning must be organized to provide ready access to global information networks and international experiences on campus and throughout the world.
  
  
• It is guided by experienced navigators: Staff must be organized in a way that develops and uses skills in guiding learners in the process of knowledge construction, drawing on multiple disciplines, and working in multiple settings.
  
  
• It uses learning projects connected to the needs of the community: The implications for learning organization are quite clear here. The community becomes very central to learning, and lines are blurred between campus and community. This will be essential in planning and supporting the desired learning process.

Key Concepts Regarding the Learning Organization

The learning organization has become a central concept in both the language of organizational practice and in the literature of organizational theory and research. It represents a productive response to the uncertainties of a turbulent environment. Despite the popularity of this idea, we find little evidence of such learning activities in educational institutions. Instead, we find schools and colleges that can be labeled teaching organizations, where there is little use of information for purposes of organizational learning. NDTYI attempts to change the collegiate metaphor from teaching to learning. It defines the information flows needed to foster student learning and to link the academy to its environment. Through the use of modern organizational research, NDTYI develops a design for the learning college. This design takes shape in models of the essential systems needed to promote organizational learning.

In developing this chapter, we attempted to strike a middle ground between emphasis on structure versus emphasis on process. Such a middle ground lies between the conceptual approaches to organization design and structural designs like those described by Richardson (1991). Our approach is very much in line with Senge (1991), if one includes his analysis of microworlds in the design process.

The transformation called for in these steps is one that changes the college from a teaching institution to a learning organization. If the college is to be about learning, it must learn about itself, its work, and its environment.

The Teaching Institution

Schools, colleges, and universities have one basic characteristic in common--they are teaching institutions. They teach in the sense that information is supplied to students by experts. The information they provide is lodged within a curriculum that is relatively static in the short run and only marginally dynamic in the longer run. They are institutions in the sociological sense of the word. That is, they exhibit certain patterns of organization and standard sets of roles for both staff and students.

More to the point of this section, the teaching institution is a prisoner of a paradigm that cuts across all educational organizations. This is a perspective that sees the work of schooling through the lens of resources. Students are counted only as FTE (full-time equivalents), who generate an average level of tuition so that revenues can be estimated. In the case of the school, the concern is limited only to enrollment or ADA (average daily attendance) since there is no other revenue. On the expense side of the ledger, it is the FTE faculty and their average salary that expresses costs. This gives rise to a narrow view of productivity where SCH (student credit hours) are the bearer of the costs of production embodied in faculty (Massy, 1991).

Nowhere in this paradigm is any attention paid to learning. Not even in the limited sense of costs per unit gain. Learning is assumed to take place whenever SCHs are delivered. And the magnitude of learning is reflected in the amount of "seat time" spent by students to accumulate "credits" toward some license or degree. There can be no argument with the proposition that education is instruction and that, for the most part, it takes place in the institutional frame defined in the above paragraphs.

Here is the starting point for the organizational design process. To be seen as credible, any new design must begin with the concepts and language of the "Financial Management Paradigm" (Bruegman, 1995). There are at least three reasons why this paradigm must be taken into account. First, the institutional system of higher education speaks this peculiar dialect. Students attempting to move from one organization to another must measure the value of their learning in terms of "credits."

Second, those who staff and manage schools and colleges see their world in terms of this "ruling paradigm." They see students as seekers after "credits"; they allocate resources according to the variables of "FTE" and "tuition"; and they organize themselves in divisions and departments that house "credit-based" subject matters. Finally, the buyers themselves, the students, expect organizational forms and practices consistent with the paradigm. They know that "credits" are the coin of the realm, and they are unconvinced that alternative products such as learning outcomes have value in the marketplace.

These attributes define an organization that is, in every sense of the word, "collegiate." It is hierarchical in structure and committed to the symbols of status that hold the university in highest esteem and relegate the TYI to the lowest echelon. It is an organization that is balkanized into departments that reflect ancient subject matters; divisions which, in subtle ways, speak to a hierarchy of prestige. The attributes of "collegiality" can be summarized as in the following:

The "collegiate" organization is managed from a bureaucratic perspective which uses the budget cycle as its principle point of reference. In effect, managers use a "single loop" structure that uses year-end data to plan for the next year. The result is a ponderous organization, ill-equipped to function in a rapidly changing, global environment (Pew Higher Education Roundtable, 1994). And it is this environment that is forcing a new design on the academy--one that is able to foster learning and has the capacity to learn about itself and its future prospects.

The Learning Organization

In the turbulent environments of modern organizations, survivors, to say nothing of those who will succeed, are the businesses, agencies, and schools that are able to learn. To quote Senge (1990),

This, then, is the basic meaning of a "learning organization," an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future. For such an organization, it is not enough merely to survive. "Survival learning" or what is more often termed "adaptive learning" is important, indeed it is necessary. But for a learning organization, "adaptive learning" must be joined by "generative learning," learning that enhances our capacity to create. (p. 14)

Thus, learning implies both the capacity to "fit" to the environment and to shape it toward a productive future for the organization.

As we move toward this objective, it is necessary to leave inappropriate organizational metaphors behind (Morgan, 1986). Old paradigms rely on hierarchies, bureaucracies, and, in education, instruction/finance. They have no survival value in a modern, global society. In their stead, we need organizations that can generate new knowledge and the systems to put it to work (Mason, 1992). This means that a new organizational design cannot be framed exclusively in student credit hours, full-time equivalent faculty, and credit-based courses. Instead, design must be described in a new language where learning takes center stage (Barr, 1993).

The language of the learning organization centers on information. This is in marked contrast to other metaphors where roles, structures, and power are the topics of conversation. In education, the work of the organization is compartmentalized by the subject matters owing their form to ancient philosophic principles. These same organizations manage day-to-day affairs by simple divisions of labor that hearken back to the colonial foundations of the academy. To make it possible for these organizations to learn requires more than a little cultural transformation. The current management culture must alter its financial base to incorporate partnerships and innovation. And the academic culture must alter its view of subject matter and accommodate a learning perspective.

Such fundamental transformations require a radically different perspective on the structure of the college. The collegiate model so familiar in educational organizations will be replaced by dynamic structures that foster innovation within the organization, adaptation to the environment, and, above all, responsiveness to learners (O'Banion, 1995).

If the NDTYI is to foster learning, it follows that the organization must be constructed from this starting point. When learning is shaped to the capacities of students and the requirements of social and economic life, the foundation of the learning organization is in place. In Figure 14, we show the flow of information associated with the learning process.

The "Learning Process" of this new organization is at the center of Figure 14; it includes the set of activities that facilitate student interaction with knowledge and with one another. It is the organizational site where construction has replaced instruction.

In order to put the Learning Process in an appropriate framework, we must provide for the use of information in organizational learning. Information about the results of constructive learning activities must be "fed back" to effect changes in the learning process. This is essentially a "Continuous Quality Improvement" (CQI) function in which student assessment is used to improve the performance of the learning process (Langford & Cleary, 1995). Figure 14 shows that the college has a goal for the Learning Process in the form of "Desired Level of Competency." Based on information about work and social life, the college can determine what the student must know and be able to do in order to be a fully functioning citizen (Astin, 1995).

The standard of Desired Level of Competence is used to evaluate the results of assessment of "Student Competency." By comparing assessments to the standard, the college can initiate "Adaptations" that modify social "Involvement" and learning "Engagement." These modifications lead to changes in the "Construction" experiences of students to bring resultant Student Competency into line with the Desired Level of Competency.

Loops of this type replace the traditional hierarchical structures in the learning organization. They use information that compares current conditions, processes, and outcomes against desired standards to initiate corrective actions. The quality of the resulting performance depends upon the accuracy of information passed along the loop, the speed at which the loop processes information, and the extent to which key processes and actors are included in the loop (Richardson, 1991). These are also the attributes of CQI structures as they have been implemented in education (Spanbauer, 1992).

Figure 14 is the "fast loop" in the learning organization. It produces change on a time scale that is measured in days or hours to adapt learning experiences to the student. As learning experiences are aggregated over time, there is a larger concern having to do with the match between the "Desired Level of Competency" and the demands of work and social life. The "learning loop" that addresses this match is shown in Figure 15.

Using worklife as one context for developing and assessing learning outcomes, in the "Learning Goal Setting" loop, information is used to compare current goals with regard to Desired Level of Competency with "Employer Demands." By taking measures of student functioning in the workplace, the college can assess the extent to which it is preparing students appropriately. These comparisons lead to discrepancies between "what is" and "what is required" and are indicative of needs to engage in "Goal Adaptation" which, in turn, leads to changes in the Desired Level of Competency. "Responsibility Centered Management" (RCM) is the name of this process. College resources are directed to those goals that are most in line with the expectations of employers (Robbins & Rooney, 1995). Over time, changes in societal expectations are followed by the college so that students are prepared for current realities.

This loop is somewhat slower than that shown in Figure 14. However, it is a loop that must function much more rapidly and accurately than the traditional college program advisory committee if it is to respond to the accelerating pace of change in modern economic life. It is also a loop that is in continuous operation as the college engages in environmental scanning and goal adaptation.

There is, of course, a larger issue having to do with the capacity of students to function effectively in family and community, as well as in the workplace. To address the associated competencies, the college must make decisions concerning which learning goals it seeks to emphasize. In effect, the college must set priorities among learning goals to give students the best possible preparation. In Figure 16, we show the information flows associated with this decision.

"Priority Setting" is where the organization learns about the efficacy of its "Mission." If Mission does not address the "Demands" of social and economic life, new organizational goal priorities must be determined. This involves "VCM" (Value Centered Management), where stakeholders debate what the organization is about and how effectively it prepares students (Whitaker, 1994).

Finally, there is an overall concern with organizational vitality--that is, the capacity of the college to survive and prosper in the very long run. Vitality is ensured in the learning organization by information flows that speak to the needs for NDTYI as shown in Figure 17.

Constant attention to "Vitality"--that complex of resources, market presence, and staff motivation--is the driving force behind "Design" efforts. As the college experiences its relationship to the environment--the local, national, and global realities of modern life--it can determine whether current "Mission" emphases guarantee future "Vitality." By tracking organizational performance on key indicators, the college can make a general assessment of current Vitality and gather important insights into future prospects (Community College Roundtable, 1993). In the "Design" process, the institution shapes Mission to the ever-changing dynamics of the environment.

The Structure of the Learning Organization

The four loops pictured in Figure 17 constitute the structure of the learning college. They are "nested" within one another and connected by key relationships. For instance, the Design loop is connected to the Goal Setting loop by the "Organization Mission." Thus, design decisions help to set goal priorities and the effects of these decisions are felt throughout the organization. This example does not, however, imply a hierarchy of cause and effect. What happens is that Design decisions find their way to the Learning Process, which takes many other factors into account in shaping student competency. And it is student competency that relates the college to its environment to complete the circle.

Interdependency among learning loops can be shown by the "nest" displayed in Figure 18. Structure in the learning organization is found in the exchange of information within and between these loops. At any point in time, there will be an observable structure, but it will be temporary. As the environment changes, so will structure. Organizational learning is the result; the college becomes a continually adapting system of relationships, which ensures its vitality in a turbulent world (Yates, 1987).

Design Specifications for the Learning Organization

Given the above ideas and concepts, the recommended design specifications for the learning organization are shown in Exhibit 8.

A more detailed explanation of each specification is as follows:

• Organizational elements should be aligned with the learning context, signature, outcomes, and processes.
  
  New designs for learning organizations must be shaped by the requirements set by the learning process, which in turn is based on learning context, signature, and outcomes. As those requirements are aggregated, they define the needs for collecting information for the purposes of student learning and for flows of information that make for nimble, imaginative decisions. In effect, the learning process must be surrounded by information structures which make it possible for the organization to engage and shape its environment. This is especially critical for the postsecondary institution as it takes on the responsibility for individual and community development.
  
  
• The organization should be responsive to the unique learning plans of learners and recognize and use prior experiences of learners.
  
  There is, in effect, no standard learning process organization. Instead, each student has a learning plan that specifies the experiences that will move her or him toward her or his personal goal. The learning plan is dynamic in that it is continually revised in light of the learning experiences of the individual (Sinclair Community College, 1994). This is continuous quality improvement in action--a new design for the planning and management of learning. The institution must make it a firm priority to assess the knowledge the learner brings to the learning process and build on it in planning subsequent learning experiences. This will mean that each and every student will be given individual attention in the organization of the learning experience--the "moment of truth" regarding the commitment to student-centered learning. Somehow the institution must be brought around to marshal and organize its learning resources with the learner at the center, rather than being driven by staffing patterns or program structures.
  
  
• Learners should be organized in a way that supports formation of strong learning communities.
  
  Business and social organizations of the future will be characterized by intensive social exchange. People will work in teams and will be drawn together in communities where common interests are shared on a global scale. To function in such a future, individuals will need social competencies that can only be gained by experience in learning communities where students are involved with one another and engaged in the learning process. They should come to see the attributes of community, and how the attributes are developed and maintained, as well as the consequences of lack of community. Creating a sense of smallness in organization and designing to maximize informal learning are key factors in supporting and taking advantage of building learning communities.
  
  
• Learning processes should be organized in ways that support integration of general and technical subject matter areas and collaboration between the institution and the community.
  
  Historical divisions between academic and vocational curricula are a thing of the past. The challenges and opportunities of work, family, and community life do not come separated into each of the disciplines; rather, they come with the need to draw from and integrate several subject matter areas. The TYI must clearly and boldly move beyond the separation of disciplines if it is to be organized in a way that supports the learning process we have recommended. Then it will have a reasonable chance of reaching the learning outcome specifications that have been set forth.
  
  Similarly, close collaboration between the institution and the community must become the expected and achieved norm in the way the institution operates. This is what Massy (1991) calls an "open system". There is no hope for the college that is disconnected from its environment; it cannot obtain the resources, knowledge, and clients it needs for survival. To be "open" means that meaningful exchanges take place between the college and its community. It is not realistic to pose the learning outcomes and processes advocated by NDTYI without taking the collaboration with community seriously; this topic will be taken up more directly in the next chapter on learning partnerships. Institutions of higher education must quickly move away from the current mode of being fairly isolated from the community in location (often on the edge of the city, surrounded by huge parking lots and sometimes imposing walls), mode of delivery (come to campus, during the day), and opportunity for regular faculty to be available to guide learning in community contexts.
  
  By overturning traditional patterns of organization, the newly designed college makes it possible for new subject matters to emerge on demand. Knowledge is truly integrated in ways that foster the production of new knowledge and its products. Connecting to community also implies a joint responsibility for individual growth and community development (Castle & Estes, 1994).
  
  
• Learning time should be organized to support flexibility (e.g., just in time, learning in breath and depth) in learning process.
  
  A major barrier to transforming the present operation of TYIs in the directions of new designs is the time schedule--academic years, quarters and semesters, courses, and class periods. Again, if an institution is to take the recommendations of NDTYI for learning outcomes and process seriously, it must confront standard operating procedures with regard to time schedule and learning process quality assurance (e.g., long processes for curriculum modification and approval, everything equivalenced against the norm of a three-credit class, meeting during the day for one quarter/semester). There must be a high-speed feedback loop, which makes it possible for staff and students to examine the outcomes of learning and adjust experiences to ensure that outcomes match opportunity. This amounts to continuous quality improvement of the learning process (Kaufman & Zahn, 1993). Student experiences are arranged "just in time" to meet the opportunities of the moment.
  
  
• The staff should be organized in a way that enables them to become very knowledgeable of learners, be able to build strong learning communities, be able to use the community as a learning context, and be able to integrate subject matters.
  
  In the learning organization, instruction has given way to construction. Staff and students are co-equal in their joint search for timely, high-value knowledge. They arrange social and intellectual activities that mirror productive life outside the college. As a consequence, the number of tenured faculty declines in favor of persons involved in knowledge production and use in community and business organizations. Each learner must be known by someone on staff if student-centered learning is to be achieved. Building strong learning communities requires that staff have the flexibility to interact with learners, their staff colleagues, and community partners in informal as well as formal settings. Staff must be able to move about the community if the community is to be used as an effective source of learning projects and the projects are to develop into high-quality learning experiences, tapping into the best learning resources of the community. And staff must be cross-subject matter and crossfunctionally organized if the learning resources of the institution are to be made fully available and support integration of subject matter and "wrap-around" services with the learner as the center of attention and recognition.
  
  
• Technology should be organized to provide ready access to information and resources to support learning.
  
  Technology shapes the learning process while, at the same time, competence with technology is a learning outcome. No quality institution can hope to be appropriately positioned in a turbulent environment without state-of-the-art information technology (Seymour, 1991). Technology must be organized so it is readily accessible for scanning as learning resources, for communicating with co-learners, and for producing learning products. Key directions in organizing learning technology are to decentralize and personalize technology as soon as possible, with costs and constant training as due considerations.
  
  
• Environments should be organized to create flexibility, access to multiple learning settings, and promote building a learning community.
  
  If the learning process is to be characterized as just in time, the physical learning environment must be very flexible and adaptable or the environment will become an immediate barrier. The environment can easily shape and "wear down" the best intentions with respect to the learning process. Because more of the learning will be project-based, with projects drawn from the community and learning occurring in the community, the learning environment must be thought of as a network, web, or pattern of settings located throughout the campus . . . near-community, home, workplace, and the far-community readily accessible via information technology. And the environment can be a big factor in increasing a sense of community for learners.
  
  
• Decisionmaking should be organized to involve learners and make decisions as close as possible to those most affected by consequences of the decision.
  
  This means that learners are the principle driving force in continuous quality improvement of the learning experience. They have many of the experiences needed to shape their own learning plans. And the college must develop new forms of organization to support student choice (Cheng, 1993). Also for the learning staff, this design specification means a decentralization of decisionmaking and organizing in a way that localized decisions are made effectively (e.g., clear delegation, access to information, necessary power) and efficiently (e.g., time is provided, structures are in place, training is provided).
  
  
• Governance should be organized to support continuous institutional responsiveness to the needs of society, the local community, and learners.
  
  The newly designed college is a steward of public resources that are to be used for public benefit. There is a need for systems that can learn about their clients, about knowledge, and about opportunity. To make this possible there must be a transformation of governance at all levels. We see this clearly in the call for "institution-wide accrediting bodies to transform themselves from organizations that purport to accredit the `quality' of the institution into bodies that determine whether the institution has in place procedures and practices that enable it to learn about itself" (Graham, Lyman, & Trow, 1995, p. 18). Within the organization, governance takes place in a series of conversations where individuals and groups evaluate their work and explore new opportunities. These conversations can be shaped so that they flow toward decisions that change processes, programs, or even the direction of the organization (Ford & Ford, 1995). The challenge of organizing for governance is to put in place a structure and processes that continually nurture quality and community. It means building shared responsibility for continuous change as the society, local community, and learners change.

New Designs for the Learning Organization

As with the learning process, two existing strategies of organization of learning will be used to illustrate the design specifications for learning organization in practice. Each represents attention to different aspects of organizing for learning in imaginative ways.

Learning Enterprises

Saint Mary's University (n.d.), with headquarters in Winona, Minnesota, portrays and manages its operation as a solar system with its sun being its mission statement (not the founding campus or the board of directors and central administration). The university is made up of many enterprises rotating around the mission statement, and essentially operating as somewhat autonomous units (as long as they relate to mission) in terms of costs and revenues. With this way of thinking about learning organization, small, responsible communities are developing with the flexibility to be responsive in unique ways to their clients and feeling free to operate in sensible ways. Enterprises can easily come into existence or be discontinued in response to needs and without major disruption of the rest of the organization.

Satellite Learning Centers

The San Diego Community College District delivers nearly half of its instruction in 450 satellite learning centers blended into the city of San Diego and its surroundings. These centers are located in strip malls, churches, fire stations, K-12 schools, government agencies, workplaces, housing units, and a host of other settings. In this learning organization, shared learning environments are a mutual gain, access to learning is significantly enhanced, and opportunities to contextualize are often very convenient.

Summary

In this chapter, the implications for organization of learning were presented for careful review and discussion because they call for some major changes in higher education. If the learning context, signature, outcomes, and process are taken as givens, then supportive learning organization must be created. Areas of organization particularly noted were organization of learning time, students, staff, learning settings, learning processes, technology, physical environment, decisionmaking, and governance. The attributes of a learning organization, in the Senge sense, were brought to play in showing the contrast between focusing on learning as compared to teaching. Key themes running through the recommended design specifications for learning organizations were flexibility, decentralization, community, integration, and access.

[*] The part of this section focusing on "Key Concepts Regarding the Learning Organization" and the initial draft of "Design Specifications for the Learning Organization" were written by William Ammentorp. The remaining sections and overall editing was done by George Copa.