In my previous posts in this series I have mainly focused on the efforts of the ITB team and the application partners in North Germany. However, an essential part of the picture of the fieldwork is  the involvement of external partners of the Learning Layers (LL) project who have accompanied our field activities and provided feedback from parallel developments in Europe. In particular we should pay attention to the work of Gilbert Peffer (CIMNE) and Tor-Arne Bellika (I-Perform) who have taken the responsibility to find out as much as possible of European cluster policies and of the functioning of cluster organisations in Europe.

In general, it was refreshing to learn from the functioning and of the services of well-organised cluster organisations elsewher in Europe. In this respect it was interesting to learn of the cross-sectoral cluster region in Upper Austria (Oberösterreich). In a similar way it was important to learn of the specific cluster organisation in ecological construction work in Lower Austria (Niederösterreich). The former example drew attention to new cooperation prospects across accustomed boundaries. The latter example drew attention to new possibilities for knowledge transfer in the context of same area of specialisation.

Also, the work of these ambassadors of knowledge transfer has drawn attention to the fact that it was not only the ‘results’ and organisational´models of ‘mature clusters’ that were important in promoting innovations. It has been very helpful to learn what kinds of services such cluster organisations can provide for their members (e.g. in the context of HRD, talent finding, training, ICT support and logistics). In particular it is important to see that the member organisations are often SMEs who couldn’t provide such services on their own but can benefit of joining forces with each other.

This perspective is very important for the LL project. There are many ways of presenting the results of our design activities and sharing the results as ‘offerings’. As an example, the webinar concept with which we have piloted in Verden, could be developed further as such offering.  Also. there are many ways of engaging users in our development activities. Its was inspiring to find out that the participative co-design workshops of the LL project and the efforts to promote user engagement attract the interest  of cluster organisations elsewhere in Europe.

This all is part of what we are learning in the current phase of our fieldwork.

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

My previous post informed of the fieldwork activities that we had arranged with the training centre Bau ABC. In this context the construction companies were addressed in an indirect way – via apprentices who were reflecting on their working and learning experiences in the companies (and looking for new solutions). In this post I shift the emphasis from the training context to cooperation with SMEs – directly or via their network organisation (in this case the NNB/ Agentur).

In the case of Bau ABC we had a relatively easy start with the workshops. It is no major problem for training centres to involve their learners and staff members in such workshops in the course of their normal weekly schedule. However, it requires more effort from SMEs to participate in similar events (either as their own event or as a joint event hosted by trade guild or a networking agency – such as the NNB/ Agentu). Therefore, it has been necessary to find ways to present design ideas of the Learning layers (LL) project for them in such a way that they would see the benefit for them and commit themselves to the necessary preparatory events. Here our colleagues Joanna Burchert and Werner Müller as well as Tobias Funke from NNB/ Agentur have had to work hard to find ways forward. Here some remarks from an observer’s point of view. Joanna and Werner have spent the last week on a course in Verden and deepened their insights in the topic ‘ecological construction work’ and into the community. Thus, they will soon have quite a lot of fresh  first hand information to report.

Shortly after the LL Design Conference Tobias Funke raised the issue that the NNB/Agentur should develop a specific offering – a Webinar – to inform its own staff and member companies of possible uses of web applications and services that could be immediately useful. Werner and Joanna from the ITB team started to work together with this concept and agreed to take the role of trainers (to get themselves into a development-oriented dialogue with the participants). This webinar was thought to be a preparatory step to a presence workshop in which the participants could test the applications and try to customise them for their own context. However, the Webinar turned out to be an internal training event – and as such a useful one – but with no participants from the member SMEs. The planned presence workshop had to be postponed and instead a working session was organised to see how the SMEs could be approached with more targeted and customised offerings.

Without going into details it is worthwhile to mention that in our direct contacts with SMEs we have had somewhat similar experiences. It has not been easy to find an obvious way to open the discussion and design processes on other LL design ideas (although there is much good will). It is becoming clearer to us that the befits that we might be able to demonstrate in optimising work processes may lead to non-trivial issues about redistributing decision-making powers and responsibilities of risks. Thus, well-meant interventions to work processes may have problematic side-effects on the business processes. Furthermore, these issues tend to be perceived in a different light in different companies.

What we tend to see as the way forward is to develop similar exercises as the storyboard workshop in Bau ABC for apprentices and/or skilled workers in interested companies. Here the challenge is harder – the mapping of problems, hurdles and communication gaps in the process of work is though similar but the search for possible solutions may be more demanding in a mini-workshop or individual exercise. Therefore, we see it necessary to continue the interviews with company representatives and the harvesting of existing interview material.

Here, the picture is incomplete and may change soon in the light of newer information. However, the message is the same: our efforts to bring the use of ICT- and web-based tools and apps to the everyday practice of SMEs are not just simple measures of introducing new tools for those who are interested. The processes of accessing information, sharing knowledge and managing communication are very closely linked to business processes and to (re)distributing roles, powers and responsibilities. The SMEs need to get convinced that it is worthwhile taking the path that brings changes alongside developmental steps. We need to work and learn with the SMEs to see the benefits together with them.

To be continued …

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

In my previous post I indicated that our current phase of fieldwork is preparing the grounds for participative co-design processes “for the users, with the users and by the users”. So far, we have had quite a lot of activities with the training centre Bau ABC and made also a lot of experiences with different workshops. Here, the blessing for us has been that we have had a chance to have joint workshops with groups of apprentices (during their stay at the centre) and with full-time trainers (at the time slots when apprentices have been working independently with their projects). Below some remarks on our workshops and on our learning experiences about their ways of making the workshops their events in which they address their own issues, concerns and initiatives.

Firstly, on the workshop concepts with which we worked: We firstly had conversational workshops with one group of apprentices (from different trades) in the morning and with a group of full-time trainers (Lehrwerkmeister) in the initial training plus the coordinator of continuing vocational training programmes. These workshops were supported by some pre-given guiding questions (Leitfragen) but they were run as relatively free conversation to let the participants address their issues with their own accents and their own voice. As a result, the apprentices spoke very freely of what they saw a needs and possibilities for improvement regarding the training in the centre (vis-a-vis advanced practice in the companies). They also emphasised their interest to have joint projects with apprentices from  neighbouring trades. The trainers gave positive comments on the views expressed by apprentices – however, they drew attention to rather inflexible boundary conditions for accommodating the apprentices’ training periods in the centre. Thus, there is very little room for manoeuvre for meeting the wishes of apprentices re joint projects or more flexible timing of periods in companies and in the centre. In addition, the trainers started giving thoughts, how they could use digital media and web appsa more effectively in informing themselves of new developments in the trade and on advanced practice in companies. Here, it seemed that something that was discussed in initial training was already in practice in the continuing vocational training activities.

In the next phase we organised a storyboard workshop that was based on group work to make storyboards of exemplary working days of apprentices (in the morning) and trainers (in the afternoon). The two parallel groups of apprentices had different tasks: one was invited to portray a day in the training centre whilst the other was asked to portray a day in the company and in the construction site. The group that worked with a day in the centre presented a spatial journey with drawings of different locations  at the Bau ABC sites and only after completing this started to give thoughts on eventual problems and how they could be taken into account in the phase of giving instructions. The group that focused on working at construction site portrayed the work flow (and the daily journey) from the company office to the site, setting the site and carrying through the process (drilling the holes for the well to be built) and in completing the task. Here, the apprentices drew attention to eventual obstacles and needs to star again or to give up if no water is found. Thus, they highlighted key problems in the work process – in which however the availability of web tools made very little difference. At the end of this session the joint plenary discussion started top trigger ideas of new apps to extend the learning effect and to draw attention to good practice  (e.g. the Maurer-App) and comments on the (limited) usability of existing apps.

The trainers gave very positive comments on the storyboards of apprentices and gave some thoughts of the possible usability of existing apps as a basis for the proposed Maurer-App. In their own group work phase they presented two parallel storyboards of trainers work at the centre. One story focused on a relatively homogeneous group of apprentices in the initial training whilst the other illustrated the growing complexity when there are apprentices from different phases of their training and eventual visiting groups in continuing training (with visiting trainers) to be supported at the same time. Altogether, the storyboards drew much more attention to the complex social and organisational processes to be managed alongside the key training functions  (instruction, supervision, monitoring, assessing and giving feedback). In the plenary sessions a lot of thoughts were given on the possibilities to offload the trainers with digital solutions in the assessment and in giving feedback. A major issue was the access to norms, standards and regulations in which context new copyright problems had emerged. As a result, a list of several design ideas and issues was drafted to be included into the workshop report (to take into account the issues arising from initial and continuing training).

Here I have emphasised the workshop dynamics rather than particular ‘results’ to be listed as apps or solutions that would have attracted most attention. In the preparation phase our colleagues suggested different techniques to get feedback on particular ‘use cases’ or wireframes drafted on the drawing boards elsewhere. As I have illustrated it above, when the users got control of their workshops, they addressed concerns, how to improve their working and learning processes on the whole. When getting their messages into discussion we then could use  some time to illustrate some of the use cases and emerging wireframes as possible responses to their concerns. In this context the powerpoint slides and the presentation of Martin Bachl (Hochschule Karlsruhe) worked very well.

As I understand it, we are going through similar collaborative learning processes as the earlier Work and Technology projects that couldn’t successfully transplant new technologies into companies as ‘gifts that fall  from Mt Olympus that are parachuted upon users’ but had to discover the possible needs for innovations and benefits for users in iterative processes that took their own time. Yet, after these experiences we have the feeling the we are making progress.

To be continued …

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

I see that I have been out of writing blogs on the Learning Layers project quite some time – the previous ones are from April and March. I hope that no one gets the false impression that this would have been a sleepy period in the project. To be sure – it is exactly the other way round. Now, after the first Design Conference and after the Easter break the ITB team, the application partners in North Germany and our supporting partners have been busily engaged in organising Co-Design Workshops or supporting events and in doing their homework with design ideas, relevant web tools and apps as well as drafting use cases and wireframes.

In this context the role of the ITB team has been to work as “explorers on the ground” in the terrains of our application partners (the training centre grounds of Bau ABC, the headquarters of the network/Agentur for ecological construction work  and the offices of craft trade companies (SMEs) in the construction sector. The previous phase of fieldwork was characterised by collecting data of potential users of ICT/Web-based tools and apps – and of exemplary situations in which they could be of some help. Now, the present phase of fieldwork is characterised by a clear step to participative design work – for the users, with the users and by the users.

Here we have encountered different sets of possibilities (and also hurdles) when working together with our application partners (Bau ABC, NNB/Agentur and individual craft trade companies). We have written quite a lot of this in the internal working documents with which we update ourselves and our LL partners of the activities. We have also learned a lot of the visits of other LL partners who have accompanied us to the field activities. Some of such ‘lessons learned’ have also found their way to these working documents.

In the light of the above it is understandable that the motto of this series of blogs is not “what have we learned” (= results) but “what are we learning” (= insights to be considered carefully). This is all work in progress and – for us: learning alongside working in the project. Also, in many respects, the lessons that we are learning, are not completely new – they are similar lessons as were learned in earlier innovation projects for Work and Technology (Arbeit und Technik) programmes in the late 1980s and in the 1990s. Apparently, some of these lessons have to be learned anew every time in newer innovation contexts.

To be continued …

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

In my introductory post I told how I was pushed to write a series of blog posts about the value of learning from everyday life situations in different work organisations (including our own ones). This was posed as a challenge for the research partners and technical partners of the Learning Layers (LL) project. After some hesitation I got the point and came to the motto “Socio-technical fantasy and learning in everyday life situations”. (I owe much to C. Wright Mills and to Oskar Negt.)

Here, I want to report of a strange story that we experienced when we here at ITB (Bremen) tried to complete some administrative duties for the LL project and for that purpose sent a letter quickly to CIMNE (Barcelona).  This is how the story went on:

1. Episode: We had to provide documents with  signatures of the authorised persons of the University of Bremen and to send them by post (not only as scanned copies) to CIMNE. We were among the first to obtain the signatures and were ready to send the letter long before the end of November. I was about to engage a courier service (DHL) but colleagues from our administration convinced my that DHL is only the other part of the German post and that a registered letter would be delivered just as quickly.

2. Episode: One week passes and another week has started and the letter has not arrived in CIMNE. Most of the other partners have sent their ones and we are in the rearguard. The web monitoring service of the German post only tells us that the letter has been delivered to a foreign partner. The website of the Spanish post could not inform of the adventure of the letter. So, since we got concerned, we sent an official inquiry to the German post (date 30.11.2012) to find out, what had happened to the letter. We received an automated answer that the German post will promptly examine, what has been the cause of the delay and inform us asap.

3. Episode: Immediately after sending the inquiry we received the good news that the letter had reached CIMNE and that the finalisation of main contract between European Commission and CIMNE could be completed immediately. So, the big problem was no longer there. Nevertheless, we wanted to keep the inquiry going on to find out what had happened (and to see how it will be explained to us).

4. Episode: Just before the Easter holidays we get an official letter from the German post (dated 18.3.2013)  informing that the letter has unfortunately not been delivered to the recipient (CIMNE). There is no explanation what might have happened. Instead, there is a helpful advice, what to do to get a compensation for eventual damage.

Concerning our theme, “learning from everyday life situations in work organisations” we can draw several lessons and locate them on different levels (or – if you insist –  layers):

a. Lessons learned by the individuals involved: We at ITB have drawn our own conclusions on the question, which means of delivery we can rely on in our international correspondence. We also noticed the limits of the web-based monitoring services.

b. Lessons learned at the level of ‘knowledge sharing’ in the organisation: At the moment this story is being shared as a joke that is being told to colleagues as a part of informal chatting. However, there is a far more important lesson that needs to be learned across the organisation. This time a threatening problem situation was avoided but one should be prepared.

c. Lessons learned at the level of ‘knowledge sharing’ in a wider international community: Looking at this story from a wider international perspective, it is again one of those stories of things that have gone (almost) wrong because of practicalities (like sending the letter securely). In some cases huge consortia have lost the chance to submit bids because letters of commitment have not reached the coordinators in due time. This raises a question, whether someone should create a knowledge sharing tool (“Erfahrungssammler”) to raise awareness of such problems and to give recommendations for appropriate practice.  …

I stop my story here before the fantasy carries us too far away from the realities of everyday life. Of course I have put a bit of exaggeration into  my last point. Indeed, it is easy to try to push others to examine their everyday life situations (with the hope that they find the episodes as stimulus for learning). It is a bit more difficult to get inspired of one’s own experiences with everyday life situations as described above. However, this is the motivational hurdle that the LL project and the partners try to overcome.

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

After a holiday break it is time to catch up with the developments in the Learning Layers (LL) project. My previous postings were about design ideas and how to get them well grounded. Indeed, there are plenty of lessons to be learned.

In one of our recent meetings I told a story about administrative oddities at the sidelines of the project. Suddenly our colleague Werner started to analyse this story and identified many aspects  of informal learning (to be shared with others) and many challenges for developing our capability to share lessons learned (with or without web tools). The more we discussed, the more we found ourselves in a similar position as our application partners, whom we want to inspire to share episodic information from their everyday life and promote learning via sense-making and scaffolding.

Thanks to a strong push from Werner I have started a new series of blog postings in which I follow this lead by treating episodes, challenges and critical (if not heretical) questions.  I have given these a common heading “Socio-technical fantasy and learning in everday life situations”.  I have taken the liberty to follow the roads that were started long ago by C. Wright Mills (“Sociological imagination”) and by Oskar Negt (“Soziologische Phantasie und exemplarisches Lernen”). I wish that the said forerunners do not mind that I have copied their influential headings and adapted them for the LL context. What I do hope is that the following blog postings help us to identify the value of everyday life situations in different working contexts (including our own ones) and to see the challenges, how they can be treated as a basis for learning.

To be continued …

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

In my previous post I presented some first impressions on the results of the Design Conference of  the Learning Layers (LL) project  in Helsinki in the beginning of March.  I was still travelling back and could only raise the question: How to take these ideas further and make them work “on the  ground”? Now we have had more time to digest the results and to develop our thoughts with both feet steadily on the ground.

This week the ITB hosted a joint meeting of the LL partners working with the North German construction sector (ITB, Pontydysgu, Bau ABC and the Agentur/ Netzwerk für Nachhaltiges Bauen. We discussed the results of the Design Conference and how to organise local design teams to get the design ideas properly grounded. Concerning the follow-up of the Design Conference the participants took note of two videos that had been prepared after the design conference:

• The video prepared by Tobias Ley (TLU) and his team that presented the results of the design team Bits and pieces.
• The video (and slidecast) prepared by Tobias Funke (Agentur) to develop the design idea of the team Captus further. (I now see that Tobias is reworking this video and has named this one as “Old version” – work in progress!)

In the discussion the following comments were made on the results of the design teams in the LL Design Conference:

a) The progress of the design team Sharing Turbine was appreciated since the group was able to make good use of the inputs coming from the application partner (Bau ABC) and the documents prepared by the ITB and Pont teams. The contextual map presented the learning cycles between formal training and workplace learning as a dynamic turbine. The group was approaching a common understanding of the challenges (and the application partners were pleased about this progress).

b) The work of the design team Captus had not reached a similar process dynamic. The abstract modelling of capturing knowledge and the illustration of particular applications could not outline a context for common work. Therefore, there was a risk of design ideas falling apart from user engagement (that was to be linked to the idea of Learning exhibition). From this perspective the video and slide share prepared by Tobias Funke has brought into picture the actual context of design activities and a strategy to address different user groups with different apps.

c) The work of the design team Bits and pieces focused mainly on the health care sector (and on the need to collect experience and evidence for the revalidation of health care professionals on regular intervals). Yet, the approach that was piloted by the group – to collect notes to a box file and then arrange the notes with the help of categories and learning paths seemed highly relevant for the construction sector as well. In particular the approach responded to the needs addressed by craft trade SMEs to develop a collector of problem cases or challenging jobs for further learning (Erfahrungssammler). For the sake of launching a parallel activity the pictures presented under this design idea and the video were helpful. However, to address the North German construction sector, German language versions would be needed.

Based on this situation assessment the following conclusions were made concerning local design teams to be launched for the North German construction sector:

1) The needs of Bau ABC provided the basis for the work of the “Sharing Turbine” team. Therefore, it is obvious that a local design team (in Bremen) is developing some key activities that are supported by a wider design team (involving technical partners). In order to link the work of the technical partners to local activities it is necessary to clarify, what occupational areas are to be covered and what kind of examples of apprentices’ projects can be provided (as scanned documents and translations). Also, to ensure a broad-based user engagement it is necessary to clarify, at what stage different target groups (apprentices, trainers and teachers, companies) will be involved.

2) The needs of the Agentur/Netzwerk für Nachhaltiges Bauen provided the starting point for the work of the “Captus” team. Now, the video and slidecast of Tobias Funke have brought the design ideas back into the working contexts of ecological construction work and addressed the possiblities to use ICT and Web within the forthcoming exhibition. These new perspectives need to be brought into discussion in the wider design team and on its wiki page. This provides a basis for linking the local activities and the involvement of the technical partners.

3) The needs of the Bremen crafts and trades companies provide a basis for a sub-team of the “Bits and pieces” team (working with the idea of the Erfahrungssammler for the companies and the trade guilds. Here, the approach needs to be developed in the light of the progress of the main team and the neighbouring teams.

I think this is enough in this context. The rest of our discussion was about planning the field activities and making sure that we are entering the phase of local design workshops with content-related issues and readiness to put the potential benefits of web technologies to the context.

Here it is worthwhile to draw attention to the need to maintain contacts between the technical partners and the “local” partners working with issues raised above. I see two possible traps that we need to avoid:

• If we leave the technical design work floating in its own realm and expect it to come up with something useful we have the risk of putting the carriage before the horse (if I may use such old-fashioned metaphor). It is not likely that the carriage could pull the horse or that the horse would be willing to push the carriage.
• If we go too hastily to the local design workshops with expected users without having a clear picture what our technical partners can deliver (or refer to) we have a risk of chasing the horse running without the carriage. It is not likely that the carriage could catch up the horse by itself or that a loosely running horse would like to get back to the carriage.

I have just spelled out the risks we have to keep in mind in our daily work and see that the work of our design teams (both at the local level and at the consortium level) take this into account. The good spirit at the Design Conference and the active involvement of partners in the follow-up gives ground for optimism.

Follow-up steps to be expected soon …

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

Earlier this week the Learning Layers (LL) project was assembled to its first Design Conference (DC)  in Helsinki, hosted by the LL team of Aalto University at Arabia Factory. The event was organised as a “creative space” (or – if you allow me the expression: creative spaceship) to work out initial design ideas to be taken further by design teams that will start their work in the coming period. Some of the design ideas had a specific local flavour, whilst others can be seen as more transversal. The challenge for the project is now: How to take these ideas further and make them work “on the  ground”?

The initial design ideas will soon be presented in detail on the LL wiki. Therefore, it is not worthwhile to recapitulate them here. I would rather raise the question: What can we learn from the whole set of design ideas and from the process of developing them in the parallel working groups at the DC? Below some preliminary observations and remarks on the design ideas as they were presented by the respective working groups:

 a) “Learning funnel – Making sense of bits and pieces”

This working group focused on the process of preparing an e-portfolio for health professionals to collect evidence of their learning and professional development. The driving force is the fact that these professional have to go through a regular revalidation to be authorised to continue in their profession. From this perspective the group simulated the present pattern of the professionals to file experiences and useful bits of information to boxes. Then, with the help of the prepared storyboard, the process of making use of such information (filed digitally) was reconstructed. Much emphasis was given on the ideas of “protected learning time” and for the phase of “sensemaking” in order to structure the bits and pieces as evidence within different learning paths. This all was happening with a focus on health care but every now and then the relevance for construction sector was discussed (e.g. in terms of  “Erfahrungssammler” for SMEs and their trade guilds).

b) “Captus – capturing knowledge and experience”

This team took as its reference point the plan of the Network for sustainable construction work (NNB) to prepare a “learning exhibition”. The working group drafted frameworks for the mapping the knowledge to be brought together by such approach. In addition, the group discussed specific ideas, how to use new media for capturing the essentials of practitioners’ experience to be presented. As an extension to the topics of the previous group, this group raised the issue, how to overcome cultural barriers and reservations regarding the use of new media.

c) “The sharing turbine – the learning cycles across training and workplace learning”

This team took as its reference point the idea of Bau ABC to develop specific “open learning centre” or “self-learning space” to support the domain-specific training and professional development with support for using multimedia. The group developed s contextual map, how the training centre could serve as “turbine” for learning and knowledge sharing in several cycles (including initial and continuind training as well as personalised learning). Here it is also worthwhile that the group discussed different kinds of learning curves and the implications for scaffolding.

d) “Pandora – the living local guidelines”

The fourth working group discussed the need to complement the nation-wide guidelines of the National Health Service (NHS) with “living local guidelines”. The working group had a similar exercise as the previous one and it raised several questions, how its approach to “local guidelines” could be relevant for the construction sector.

I think this is enough for the moment. (I probably need to make some amendments after all the results of the working groups are presented on the wiki.) However, I hope that this is helpful for the further work. In my next post I try to present some thoughts, how the preliminary ideas can be “grounded” and adjusted to our working agendas on our home grounds (in the case of the ITB in North Germany and in the cooperation with our application partners).

To be continued …

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

In my previous two posts I discussed the current transition of  the Learning Layers (LL) project  from fieldwork to  design activities. I raised the question, how the emerging design ideas would best meet the needs and interests of our application partners in the construction sector. In  this respect I drew attion to two strategic frameworks for pooling design ideas and linking them to their own developmental initiatives. In this post I want to draw attention to more  specific design design ideas and to challenges we need to take into account:

a) Digital learning logs or e-portfolios for apprentice training (and workplace learning)

One of the observations during the fieldwork was that the documentation of learning progress in the apprentice training for German construction industries and trades is carried out manually (the white folders). Likewise, there is a lack of good models for presenting evidence on prior experience-based learning in the context of regulated continuing training (e.g. the Meisterschulungen). In a similar way, companies have difficulties in ducumenting their organisational learning. All this speaks for development of e-portfolios and learning logs. Given the multitude of existing models, ther is a need for overviews that make transparent different basic models, criteria for using them (e.g. for assessment, recognition and professional development) and institutional and organisational boundary conditions for implementing them.

b) Software solutions for harvesting informal learning

Current software development brings forward solutions tham make large-scale collection of evidence on (informal) learning possible, e.g. the so-called Tin Can API or Experience API. These would provide a basis for learning analytics and datamining on work-based learning across different databases. Although this discussion is at present at an early stage, it is necessary to pay attention to this prospect (either as a spin-off development or as a neighbouring field of work). At any rate it is essential to consider, how complex action-oriented learning (based on occupational standards) can be made transparent with such software solutions. Likewise, it is essential to analyse, how current methodologies for analysing and measuring holistic competences could be linked to such software development prospects.

 c) Linking physical artefacts with learning applications

One of the observations was that there is a rapid progress in using QR tags to share information on physical artefacts in construction work. Yet, there are several communication gaps and logistic problems that demonstrate that such potentials have not been exhausted. Therefore, there is a need to develop complementary models (such as image recognition apps) that could more direcly be linked to (digital) learning resources that inform of appropriate tools and materials in the respective jobs. Here, it is necessary to draw conclusions of the unsuccessful piloting with earlier equipments and applications (e.g. the digi-pens for construction sector). Moreover, there is a need to get an overview of emerging technologies (QR-tags and complementary apps).

 d) Support for user-generated learning materials and multimedia resources

This prospect came up during several field visits. Many problem situations could be overcome and many communication gaps could be bridges with short videos or other multimedia contents. Many training centres, professional networks and supporting bodies could be in the position to produce, collect and enriuch such contents. However, it is one thing to enable a wider range of users to produce such user-generated contect and another thing to integrate such contents into well-organised, well-checked and updated knowledge resources.

I stop here although the list is not exhaustive. My point is to give a picture of some design ideas that emerge from the working and learning contexts that we have studied and can be discussed alongside the overarching  ideas of “learning exhibition” or “open learning centre”.

The discussion needs to be brought forward in the forthcoming Design Conference and in the next phase of work of the LL project.

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

In my previous post I mentioned that the Learning Layers (LL) projecte is heading from an active phase of fieldwork to the joint start of design activities. I also told how the LL teams of ITB and Pontydysgu had reviewed the user stories from North German construction sector and put them into wider contexts.  In this post I prefer to discuss, how the emerging design ideas would best meet the needs and interests of our partners in the construction sector. In this context I want to draw attention to the wider contexts that they have outlined for discussing eventual design ideas, web applications, software solutions or internet services. I see them as two strategic frameworks for pooling design ideas and linking them to their own developmental initiatives.

a)  “The learning exhibition”: Our partner organisations in the ecological construction work are expecting that their new building with an exhibition area will be ready next year. For the inaugural event they are preparing a new kind of exhibition to promote general awareness, professional interest and design ideas in ecological construction work. They want to combine the possibilities of a real exhibition with physical artefacts (with possibilities to touch, sense and feel) and the potentials of web technologies. Moreover, they want to be able to address interested laymen, young apprentices, experiences craftsmen and architects as well as policy makers and other stakeholders. All this requires a differentiated approach, how to present advance information, real-time participation via web and follow-up possibilities.

Here it is worthwhile to note that the target groups are very heterogeneous and their readiness to make use of web-based information varies to a great extent. From this point of view the work with the exhibition may serve as an important preparatory step for wider use of specific web applications, services and community support.

b) The “e-laboratory” (open learning centre/ self-learning space): Our partners working for a major training centre that supports initial and continuing training in a wide range of ( industrial and craft) occupations in construction sector have also developed similar thoughts. Their concern is that some occupational fields are strongly supported regarding uses of ICT, mobile technologies and web, whilst others are lagging behind. If the training activities were complemented by an “e-laboratory” (including an open learning centre and a web space for self-learning) they could better stimulate the integration of uses of web and internet into the culture of learning and professional development across the range of industrial and craft occupations – including different levels of qualifications.

Here it is worthwhile that such a learning facility and a related web space (if well organised) could open new possibilities for self-organised learning, making transparent one’s own capabilities and sharing knowledge. Moreover, they could make it easier to explore the multitude of existing web resources and to make transparent professional forums for knowledge sharing knowledge developments. Here again, the idea needs to be taken up by the responsible organisations and communities to make it work.

I have mentioned these two frameworks for pooling the design ideas before going into the detailed ideas. What strikes me here is that our partners have wanted to draft their own contexts for presenting new solutions or informing of new ideas. Thus, when discussing specific design ideas, there is a frame of reference – how to fit it into a bigger picture, how to present it in a wider context. In this way the design ideas do not appear as one-to-one solutions to individual problems (although these need to be taken into account as well). But these represent a bigger agenda, into which the work with certain key ideas needs to be linked. Therefore – the ideas of an exhibition and e-laboratory need to be brought to a mature phase and the particular design ideas should have a role in it. Equally, this provides a possibility to develop patterns for presenting design work done by others and developmental work in the LL project itself.

To be continued …

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.