6. The reflection phase: qualities and limitations

In the reflection phase the robustness of a given solution/tool is assessed

In the current research phase, there is a focus on the robustness of the dialogue tool, and thus its sustainability. This means that we critically reflect on the qualities and limitations a solution possesses, as well as whether the solution is applicable outside the concrete empirical context in which it is developed. This aspect is specifically important in DBR research since we are preoccupied with how the developed solutions can be disseminated and thus enrich other contexts and learning arenas. 

The reflection phase includes a form of assessment of whether a solution can be transformed into other contexts, but also an evaluation of the further life of the solution, obvious developments, and upscaling possibilities. 

In relation to the present research project this concretely entails a discussion on the qualities and limitations of the mock-up developed. As unfolded in the previous chapters this dialogue tool is the product of conversations and cooperation with participants from the practice field through interviews with employees and managers as well as through observations in the field – that is, observations of the interaction between people and machines in manufacturing enterprises across the five Nordic countries. The development of the dialogue tool has not been linear but is the result of an iterative process between analysis, testing, and adjustments. The reason for this is to ensure that the dialogue tool is as robust as possible and thus able to create the best conditions for its transformation to other contexts.

One of the qualities of this tool, which we assess as being important in the transferability to other contexts, is its theoretical grounding in organisational theory and sociomaterial theory. We believe that these theoretical perspectives focus on the conditions of which digitalisation is a part. It means that theorywise we concentrate on the change (the materialisation) itself and all the framework factors and circumstances in which the change is embedded. This includes of course the specific practices, technologies, behaviour, moods, narratives, designs, hierarchies, professional identities, etc., but with this perspective we can also discover the local effects and implications. It is exactly these circumstances we encourage enterprises to consider. This means that the primary focus of the dialogue tool, and what it does, and that it can be transferred to other contexts, ensure that attention can be given to local drivers that both limit and support digitalisation. It is everything that happens “around” the technologies and which is a co-creator of the digital transition.

With “everything that happens around the technologies” we mean that the tool aims at creating a dialogue on those issues within the digital transition that are hard to pin down, and which often are those issues that present themselves in specific ways in various enterprises. Those are for instance issues related to prejudices we have about each other, professional identity struggles, and empower­ment of colleagues, but they also include the specific organisational forms that develop and their implications. For instance, if it is locally discovered that a new coordination app creates better (more qualified), but fewer face-to-face conversations, and the enterprise via dialogue learns that this has implications for the well-being, one must make sure that these face-to-face dialogues happen elsewhere. The point is that this dialogue on framework conditions, new organisa­tional forms and their implications must take place locally, and that it is this dialogue that can be facilitated by the tool, across all sectors that find themselves in a digital transition process.

Another quality of the dialogue tool, and which strengthens its robustness, is the basis upon which the tool is developed. In several of the research process phases the research team has, as mentioned above, cooperated with relevant stakeholders. These are first and foremost employees and managers experiencing digital transition but also includes a variety of professionals within digitalisation and working life through the networks NVL Digital – Inclusion and NVL Digital – Working Life. These professionals have specifically contributed to the sanction of the domain-specific information in the context phase, but have, during the lab and intervention phases, also contributed with valuable input to the preliminary analytical findings and offered feedback on our mock-up of the dialogue tool (the latter has exclusively involved practice participants). Despite this deep involvement it must be mentioned here that the tool is only tested in one interview intervention in six enterprises, thus there is still uncertainty regarding the tool´s robustness in practice (this aspect will be unfolded during “Limitations” below).

A third quality of the dialogue tool is its invitation to “in-house” organisational development. The tool is not meant as a product that enterprises can buy for its usefulness, like for instance a new evaluation system, or as a provision where employees are to be sent out of the house for a brief or longer period to train new skills. This is an advantage, on the one hand because it is not expensive (no fees, course payments, etc.), and on the other hand because employees are not sent away for a period (which for SMEs is a heavy burden). Rather, the change processes are strengthened by combining dialogues and critical reflections with already existing practices like for instance performance and development interviews. In this way the insight developed through dialogue is anchored in the real working life within the individual enterprise. Realisations and insights are directly attached to the concrete machines, cooperation dynamics, hierarchies, IT requirements, etc. Consequently, a possibility of a real transfer of learning to the concrete work practices is created, compared to when employees for instance are sent away to external courses (Aarkrog & Wahlgren, 2012).

Despite these potential time and financial cost savings, and the possibility of a more real connection to actual work practices, we are aware that the use of the tool is not entirely “free”. Its use must be a priority in the organisational dialogue (which is time/money consuming). In addition, time must be set aside if agreements are made on exploring local practice stories (element 2), and their follow-up.

As described in the two previous phases the mock-up developed is the result of testing with participants from the practice field. This testing has been performed via in-depth, virtual interviews that aimed to investigate whether the topics that the vignettes of the dialogue tool describe can be recognised by the actors in the field. Another aim has been to discuss whether conversations in the enterprises on some of the implications of digitalisation can contribute to creating better or more frictionless change processes in which employees are more involved. That is, develop a higher degree of empowerment among employees taking part in such processes. 

Even though these aspects of the dialogue tool have been tested in the form of interviews and follow-up adjustments, a limitation concerning the mock-up developed is that it has not been tested in practice by employees and managers. As such, we cannot say anything about whether the tool, when tested in practice as a part of an enterprise´s repertoire of approaches and strategies in the planning and priority of digital transition, will be assessed as relevant. The research team thus recommends planning for more interventions in practice, to create a testing ground for the robustness of the tool and to assess whether it can contribute positively to the increase of enterprises´ digitalisation level and employees´ opportunities for participating in tomorrow´s working life (on the future life of the dialogue tool, please see below).

Another limitation that concerns the sustainability of the tool and as such its robustness, is related to the dialogue tool´s focus on everything that is going on “around” the technologies, and which co-creates the digital transition. This aspect is characterised above as a quality, but we perceive it also as a limitation since there is a risk that enterprises do not see a direct and tangible output of the explicit work with this focus. It may be regarded as a waste of time in a busy workday with a lack of specialised labour and economic worries, because the implications of such a focus are long-term and at times not readily visible to others than the employees themselves – but they carry a large potential for productivity, well-being, retention, innovation, and other aspects. 

To use the dialogue tool as a part of a repertoire of approaches and strategies on digital transition in the enterprise thus requires a “mental” surplus and courage to work in a targeted manner with all the local contexts of which digitalisation is a part and see the potential in thinking differently on processes that may seem locked and immutable.

A natural part of DBR-inspired research is the amplification of good ideas or ambitions on specific improvements of the product developed, that have not been possible to realise within the time frame of the project. However, these are still potentially valuable ideas or improvements that for instance enterprises or other stakeholders may continue developing, and as such it is meaningful to address some of the future perspectives and the future life of the product.

In the present report the dialogue tool takes the form of a mock-up. A mock-up is an early draft and a “model” of a dialogue tool-to-be. This mock-up is, as mentioned above, tested via interviews, and based on feedback received we have adjusted the dialogue tool to include a locally oriented approach on exploring the enterprise´s own stories (the dialogue tool – element 2).

The current form of the dialogue tool requires further development. It requires the development of a real prototype in the form of a “tangible” version of the two elements of the dialogue tool. This should include the development of additional evidence-based vignettes to be used as “conversation and reflection starters”, as well as more guidance and support for employees and managers linked to the template for exploring the enterprise´s own narratives. The further development should also address how enterprises may operationalise the achieved inputs into action in a busy working day.

This development requires another and larger intervention than the existing interviews. The research team considers that it needs a long-term cooperation with enterprises in which the dialogue tool becomes a part of practice – a part of how “we” consider organisational development. It could be specifically relevant to test the dialogue tool in enterprises that know that they face larger investments and changes of a digital nature, which will change work tasks, routines, and practice. Such testing would be interesting since it could offer insights on whether the tool could act as a supplement to IT courses, and as an in-house provision focusing on well-being, innovation, employees´ empowerment, recruitment, productivity, and retention.