Assessing Progress of Groups Developing Business Clusters
Two previous posts introduced and then further explained the concept of Stealth Curriculum, the label for an educational approach that so seamlessly embeds learning into the on-going flow of group activity that it supports, rather than interrupts, that activity. In the ideal, the knowledge transfer is indistinguishable from the activities of those already engaged in pursuing ideas, forming collaborations, and solving problems. The curriculum is designed as a framework, not a fixed set of detailed lesson plans, and so can be customized for any group by incorporating specific issues and topics which are already the focus of that group’s efforts.
The question is: how does one recognize a key moment for group learning and for delivering appropriate, helpful learning opportunities?
The short answer is: develop a simple, easy to use, but accurate means of predicting and assessing group progress in the building of business ecosystems (collaborative clusters of interdependent activity).
This post features just such a tool: the Table for Holistic Assessment of Business Development. I look forward to collaborating with you to put this tool to your best use. Thus, I encourage members of developing groups to contact me with questions, comments, or additional information after they have looked over the Table. For your reference, the Table appears at the end of this post and is also attached as PDF. The attachment is full sized for easy reading, while the copy in this post in scaled to fit, but less legible.
The Table aligns variables into a one-page grid consisting of seven stages, organized into columns from “not started” at Stage 1 to “recognized model of business ecosystem success” at Stage 7. As one reads from column to column, one sees a set of statements typifying each of the seven stages. These statements combine current knowledge about stages of business ecosystem development, stages of work group development, and stages of learning into an integrated whole. Rows focus on objectives, activities, and outcomes. Outcomes cover For each column and for each row, there is a related cluster of statements organized into cells.
Based on consideration of each of the statements, the Table guides an overall assessment about the status of a group’s progress at a given point in time. By observing a group live and on-line and by talking with group members, a reasonably informed person can make an overall judgment, expressed as a number (and including comments) about the current status of any group.
In addition to pointing the way for group and business development, the Table also guides Stealth Curriculum. Given an assessment of a 1-7 for any group, one can anticipate the learning needs of that group. Then by inserting that learning into the flow of group activities, the group gains capacity to progress through the stages.
The Table is duplicated below. Because it has to be minimized in size to fit this post, reducing its legibility, the Table is also attached as a PDF document.
Stealth Curriculum fits into the imaginary seam between each of the stages. To get from Stage 2 to Stage 3, for example, we can anticipate that a group will benefit from knowing how to use the Local Food Systems website to form a work group and engage in open communication by posting ideas and comments, communicating with each other, and keeping track of activities by using the calendar feature. Compared to the inconsistencies of individual or group subset emails, web-based communication shares and archives information and communication for all.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Holistic Assessment Table, for post 10 Aug.pdf | 45.63 KB |
- Ross MacDonald's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Thoughts on Stealth Curriculum
Ross,
Thanks for sharing your ideas in three posts about stealth curriculum and its timing. You have given us a lot to consider. I believe that the Table for Holistic Assessment of Business Development provides a useful basis for discussion and I very much appreciate the thought that has clearly been part of its development. After thinking about it for a while, I'd like to suggest some possible additions or extensions.
Much of what you have called "stealth" from the standpoint of researchers and theorists might be considered more or less business as usual by technical assistance providers or outreach professionals or extensionists. The people who are good in these roles, in my experience, excel in figuring out when to interject some advice or information and when to just provide encouragement and support. To the extent that we can define the best times to offer and to listen, we can certainly advance these fields.
The steps and phases that you describe are focused largely around group process. I believe that is important, but so is the group content. How could this be further incorporated into your model? It seems to me that in addition to the guiding values you have proposed, it might be possible to add a fifth value that could be something like "In touch with reality" or "based on empirical data" or something similar. I am not talking about imposing facts from the outside, but rather of helping group participants check their perceptions with those of others and with available data. Also, in addition to capturing and incorporating "examples and success stories", I believe that it is also critical to acknowledge barriers and challenges whether overcome or continuing as obstacles to ultimate success.
I am coming to this work as an applied researcher, an outreach educator, a university-based partner, a facilitator and a technical assistance provider. My role shifts somewhat depending on the group with which I am working and we try to mutually define our respective roles. I believe deeply in trying to understand and respond to the group's needs, but I can add more value if I also draw upon my expertise and experience to help inform the group. I find it to be a delicate balance that is a bit different with each group.
So when you, in post #2, state that the educational objective of learning support for business develoment is to expand the collaborative communication skills of emerging groups, from my perspective that is only one among several objectives. Let me give you an example. I manage a listserv for Michigan farmers markets. Over four or five years we have acquired 750+ subscribers, mostly from Michigan but also some from beyond. A major objective of the listserv is to expand the collaborative communication skills of emerging farmers markets by providing an easy way for them to communicate with one another. But a second objective is to provide a channel where we can share critical, factual informtion with this group. Sometimes that comes as announcements. Often it comes in opportunities to respond to questions that are posted on the list. I certainly don't use the list as a platform to lecture. On the other hand, I would be shirking my responsibility if I did not comment when and where I can add useful content to a discussion. So I think we need to come up with a way to incorporate both content and process into the curriculum design.
Enough about the theory and on to the table. I think it presents one -- not the only -- path that a group can take. That is fine as long as we don't struggle to make groups fit the model. For example, a group of people may already be connected in some way, but that connection may not be around a common food systems or business opportunity. That situation would, I believe, alter the progress of the group.
One common shorthand for group process talks about groups that "form, storm, norm and perform". While certainly over-simplified, in my experience the "storm" phase or at least a time of significant floundering, is very typical. I am not finding that in the model. Additional aspects that I have found groups to often struggle with are who decides the issue focus of group activity, which is often defined quite differently by various group members or factions. And power issues are always critical. It is not clear to me where these may fit. Where would something like feasibility or market analysis fit? Should we be aiming for a "stable" system or recognizing that resilient systems need to by dynamic? Shoud we be aiming for an "independend" system or perhaps one that is interdependent? I believe that we can strengthen this model by thinking about how to incorporate some of these ideas.
Even though our focus is on communication, I don't think we can ignore other aspects of group development. In the January 2009 Harvard Business Review, an article titled "How GE Teaches Teams to Lead Change" illustrated an assessment tool that measured and compared teams on dimensions of: risk taking, debate, idea suport, conflict, playfulness/humor, idea time, trust/openness, freedom, and challenge/involvement. It seems like we are trying to identify ways that social networks might help groups to grow in dimensions like these.
One other idea that I wanted to mention is the importance of "translation" in this work. Perhaps another example will illustrate what I mean. One of my colleagues our state's farm to institution specialist. Early on she discovered that the language and terminology used by farmers was very different from that used by food service directors. A critical first part of her job was to create tools and situations to help the two groups translate and find ways to better understand one another. I am seeing similar situations in other areas of my work and I've become convinced that it is an often over-looked or under-rated but essential aspect.
It has taken me a while to collect my thoughts and it is clear that they still need considerable refinement. I hope, however that they encourage others to comment and help us to clarify what we are trying to do.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Susan Smalley