(Page 9 of 22) - Learning Networks for Regional Development: High Ambitions for Swedish Regions And a Little Help from Ryan Air authored by Niklasson, Lars.

more reasonable to conclude that the national government should evaluate the partnerships rather
than the partnerships themselves (prop 1997/98:62).

“Methodological Learning Systems”

The formula used – but never explicitly defined – is that partnerships should be “methodological
learning systems” (SOU 2000:87), which is a way to talk about organizational learning in this con-
text (cf. Lawson & Lorenz 1999). “Methodological” is close to “systematic” in Swedish, and the
two words indicate that learning should be cooperative – jointly by the partnership for regional de-
velopment – and systematic/methodological in the sense of thought through rather than intuitive.

“Learning” is the key word, which has to do with actions rather than thinking or knowledge. The
point is that agencies and other members of the partnerships should adjust their activities in the light
of the results of the evaluations. “Evidence-based actions”, would be a paraphrase, indicating a de-
sire to change in order to produce better outcomes. In this sense, organizational learning is close to
organizational development, quality assurance etc.

That learning should be within a “system” was a major point of the parliamentary commission,
which complained that much knowledge of what works is dispersed among a number of regional
actors. A purpose of the partnerships is to make use of the total knowledge available to the partners,
i.e. to use tacit knowledge from each other’s organizations. Synergies between organizations are
desired. This hints at the importance of knowledge and learning taking shape in a process involving
the actors of the system. Drivers and barriers of this process become important to identify.

“Methodological” adds an emphasis on structure and established means, which indicates the use of
statistics, benchmarking or even quasi-experiments. The point is to question previous activities and
test new actions. It should be done consciously rather than intuitively. The attitude of the partner-
ship should be one of ambitiousness and consciousness, striving for cumulative learning. This com-
ponent hints at an interest in theory and a creative use of international and other experiences.

Together the three concepts specify the network as a learning organization, making information
collective and taking steps to improve the joint knowledge of what works. In other words, the idea
is that the members of the network should coordinate their priorities through a process of experi-
mentation and joint deliberation. Literally, it is the individual members who learn, but the network
should become a context for learning, which adds value to the individual partners, similar to the
learning of a formal organization under favorable circumstances. This should bring about new pro-
jects and activities that are more in line with user needs and have a greater impact on regional de-
velopment. Synergies are possible since the area of regional development is riddled with
suboptimalities due to lack of coordination. Resources can be better used by increased cooperation.

A fundamental question is if a network can be a learning organization in the same sense as a formal
organization. The ties that bind the network together are weaker and the drivers and barriers may be
different. Conducting or commissioning evaluations jointly may even be one of the strongest in-
struments to make the partners more dependent on each other and “force” them to develop trust, if
possible.

The ideal of a learning system is a situation of trial-and-error, where the members of the partner-
ships gradually find out what works for economic development and hence make increasingly better
activities. Critics have pointed out that the central government undermines this approach through
other actions. According to critics, the goals and the tools change frequently, which makes it point-
less to learn from each single step. Much of the accumulated knowledge is likely to be unusable if
regulation undergoes big changes every couple of years, as it has. A great deal of continuity in am-
bition and organization are necessary for trial-and-error to work.