Technovation 19 (1999) 373–381

www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation

Using learning networks to help improve manufacturing

competitiveness
John Bessant *, David Francis
Centre for Research in Innovation Management, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK

Abstract

Innovation which requires the acquisition of new or improved technologies involves a technical and managerial learning process
and it raises the policy question of how best to encourage and enable relevant learning. The absence or lack of experience in this
domain is a particular problem for smaller firms (SMEs) and for enterprises in economies in transition—such as in the countries
of the former Soviet Union or in eastern Europe. Successful technology transfer requires considerable management expertise as
well as the availability of suitable solutions. This paper reports on one experimental approach used on a pilot basis in Romania to
facilitate the absorption of ‘new’ manufacturing practices, which involves the development of ‘learning networks’ as an aid to this
process.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Learning; Manufacturing; SMEs; Soviet Union; Technological; Transfer

1. Introduction acquisition of technologies is not the same as implemen-

Technological change is essential to the survival and
growth of individual firms and to the development of
national competitiveness. However, organizational
research and accumulated experience demonstrate that
simply generating new ideas is not the same as making
effective use of them—the classical divide between
‘invention’ and ‘innovation’. This problem of tech-
nology transfer is of considerable relevance to policy-
makers and has led to an extensive range of policy meas-
ures aimed at trying to ‘close the gap’ between avail-
ability and actual use of new technology (Dodgson and
Bessant, 1996).
Managing technological change presents a series of
demanding challenges, of which four are particularly
important. Firstly, it is not easy for a management team
to have sufficient understanding of potential techno-
logies to take an informed judgement about which are
likely to be appropriate. Secondly, investment in new or
different technologies can be considerable and require
major commitments of resources. Thirdly, there is a need
to manage a learning and unlearning process. Lastly, the
* Corresponding author: E-mail: john6@mistral.co.uk
tation—there have been many cases where the potential
of a technology has not been exploited by a firm.
Few firms generate their own basic technologies. In
most cases technologies are transferred into the firm.
Many difficulties arise because technology transfer is not
a simple transaction. Among many factors which render
technology transfer complex and difficult to manage are:
쐌 Innovation is not an event but an extended process
within an extended time line, which involves con-
sideration of technological knowledge and finance,
marketing, human resources, strategic positioning, etc.
쐌 Transactions in innovation are not always on the basis
of one firm to another but often involve many firms
and may proceed through intermediaries. In particular
small/medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often require
the aid of some form of ‘bridging’ agent or institution
(Carlsson and Jacobsson, 1993).
쐌 Technology is a complex and multi-dimensional
‘commodity’ involving both embodied and intangible
knowledge, much of which may remain in tacit form.
For example, a new manufacturing process involves
hardware, software and knowledge about how to use
it effectively.
쐌 Technologies are dynamic and develop in terms of

0166-4972/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 6 - 4 9 7 2 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 5 - 5
374 J. Bessant, D. Francis / Technovation 19 (1999) 373–381
their functionality—often with bewildering speed. It is
necessary for frequent re-appraisals of technological
progress and trajectory to be undertaken.
쐌 Information about innovations and enabling techno-
logies is not freely and widely available, especially for
SMEs who may lack awareness and access to relevant
channels of communication.
쐌 Users are often unable to articulate their needs or
define problems rather than symptoms—thus they risk
being unable to specify which technologies they
require for transfer, or acquire inappropriate techno-
logies.
쐌 Traditional models of technology transfer assume that
cost is the main factor accounting for diffusion. But
studies of innovation adoption suggest that other fac-
tors influence the adoption decision and that the role
of subjective perception on the part of the adopter is
important (Rogers, 1984).
쐌 As Voss points out, much of the innovation literature
neglects the question of implementation—yet the
transfer of complex new ideas into successful practice
is often an extended process involving considerable
learning and adaptation. (Voss, 1986; Leonard-Bar-
ton, 1988).
These issues suggest strongly that successful tech-
nology transfer requires considerable management
expertise as well as the availability of suitable solutions.
The absence or lack of experience in this domain is a
particular problem for SMEs and for enterprises in econ-
omies in transition—such as in the countries of the for-
mer Soviet Union or in eastern Europe.
Innovation which requires the acquisition of new or
improved technologies involves a technical and mana-
gerial learning process and it raises the policy question
of how best to encourage and enable relevant learning.
This paper reports on one experimental approach used
on a pilot basis in Romania, which involves the develop-
ment of ‘learning networks’ as an aid to this process.
2. Context for the project
It is worth briefly reviewing the context in which this
project took place. Romania, along with many eastern
European economies is involved in a difficult transition
process towards adopting market-based economics.
Institutions are in a state of flux, with many being forced
to close while others suffer dramatic cuts. For those that
remain, there is a major task of reconfiguration, a process
which involves not only scaling down and decentraliz-
ation but, also, profound rethinking of the business prin-
ciples under which they are organized and operate. Of
particular relevance to our discussion are the following
characteristics:
쐌 Manufacturing industry is, in general, very weak with
inappropriate capacity, outdated plant and processes
and with an orientation towards large-scale mass pro-
duction which is out of line with the world market
trends towards global standards and micro-market
customization with an emphasis on non-price factors.
쐌 There is a very low awareness of the importance of
marketing. The techniques of systematic market
research are almost entirely absent. Moreover, there
are inadequate funds for developing marketing skills
and strategies.
쐌 The historic separation of R & D into institutes and
away from the operation of individual firms has left
companies without an internal dynamic and an unbal-
anced set of firm-level capabilities.
쐌 Manufacturing management is underdeveloped and
steeped in a tradition of ‘command and control’,
appropriate for output-oriented mass production. In
order to implement some of the ‘new’ manufacturing
philosophies such as ‘total quality management’,
‘just-in-time’ production and cellular manufacturing
there is a need to move towards alternative models of
organization based on teamwork and decentralization.
In other words, there is a requirement for re-tooling
not only the physical plant and equipment but also
the mental frameworks which underpin manufacturing
organization and management.
쐌 The availability of the ‘new’ manufacturing techno-
logies, which include not only physical equipment but
also such mental models, is limited and largely based
on high-cost, short-term external consulting projects.
Within Romania, the technology support infrastruc-
ture (research institutes, universities, etc.) is suffering
from transitional problems of a similar nature and
lacks awareness or knowledge about many of the
‘new’ manufacturing technologies within the context
of increasingly globalizing industrial change drivers.
The implications for Romanian manufacturing indus-
try are that to develop a competitive approach consider-
able learning will be needed along a number of dimen-
sions. Table 1 summarizes some of the key challenges.
The prescription for moving to the right hand side of
this table is well known and widely proven. Experiences
in Japan, and more recently across the Western world,
have demonstrated the potential of the new approaches
to manufacturing. Also, it is now understood that much
of the change does not necessarily involve high capital
investment (Bessant, 1991; Kaplinsky, 1994; Schon-
berger, 1995). For example, the ‘lean’ revolution owes
much more to rethinking production organization and
management than investment in new equipment
(Womack and Jones, 1997).
For Romania, the challenge is to acquire technologies
that are relevant, build on potential areas of strength,
affordable and capable of being implemented. Even if a
technology is available and proven, it will need to be
 J. Bessant, D. Francis / Technovation 19 (1999) 373–381
Table 1
Emergent challenges in developing manufacturing competitiveness
‘Old’ manufacturing model
Mass production as dominant logic
Price is key factor
Demand is homogeneous
Scale economy based on large lot production
Hierarchical command and control organization
Standard and quota oriented
Demand planned—make to stock
Supply chains operate on arms-length and adversarial basis
absorbed and implemented within a particular context.
This will involve managerial and technological learn-
ing—in acquiring new concepts, in experimenting with
new approaches and in capturing and internalizing the
knowledge gained. The remainder of this paper considers
the underlying challenges behind developing such learn-
ing and how the process might be underpinned by
organized inter-firm learning networks.
3. Learning matters…
Learning of this kind is not a unique problem—it is
a truism that all organizations need to learn and change
if they are to survive. Work by de Gies and others has
drawn attention to the importance of developing learning
capabilities and embedding them within the organization
(de Gies, 1996). Survival is seen less as the adoption of
one specific solution than a continuing process of match-
ing needs and means by learning. Recognition of this
need has led to growing emphasis on the concept of
‘learning organizations’ and on the mechanisms through
which this capability can be developed (Leonard-Barton,
1988; Senge, 1990). One aspect is the possibility of gain-
ing traction and support for the learning process through
working with others in what we term ‘learning net-
works’. Before we look at this it is useful to consider
some basic ideas about organizations and how they
learn.
4. How organizations learn
There is much discussion of learning in organizations,
but we can draw out a number of common themes,
including the following. First, learning can be viewed as
a cyclical process (see Fig. 1), involving a combination
of experience, reflection, concept formation and exper-
imentation (Kolb and Fry, 1975). Acquiring new com-
petence in manufacturing will require activity in all four
375
‘New’ manufacturing model
Customized, flexible production (with a high degree of intrinsic
quality) as dominant logic
Non-price factors—quality, innovation, delivery, variety, design—
become increasingly important
Demand is fragmented and markets segmented
Economies of scope, based on small lot high flexibility production
Decentralized, team-based organization
Continuous improvement (CI)
Customer focused and order driven
Co-operative networks and high trust relations
Fig. 1. Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning.
of the phases. This does not happen by accident—the
learning process needs to be managed.
Full learning takes place only when the cycle is com-
pleted—thus much effort and activity in one or more
quadrants may not lead to learning that is transform-
ational. Commonly, organizations are preoccupied with
experiment rather than reflection—but a lack of critical
review (reflection) may result in inappropriate and
wasted efforts, or in reinforcing old approaches.
It is also important to recognize that learning is not
automatic—there must be motivation to enter the cycle.
A problem in the Romanian context is the lack of exter-
nal stimulus to change—until recently the economy
functioned in closed fashion and market-led signals
about the need and direction of change were not
received.
Firms often fail to learn because they are isolated and
lack support for key stages in the process. Evidence sug-
gests that learning can be supported by structures, pro-
cedures, etc. to facilitate the operation of the learning
cycle—for example, through the use of external facili-
tation.
A particular problem with learning about new techno-
logies is that much of the knowledge which needs to be
absorbed is not available in codified form. Since effec-
tive learning involves both tacit and formal components
a key task is to capture and codify—to make learning
376 J. Bessant, D. Francis / Technovation 19 (1999) 373–381
explicit (Nonaka, 1991). This process involves the
accumulation and connection of data into information
and knowledge—simply introducing new concepts to
firms via know-how exchanges or seminars may not
result in learning.
Finally, learning may take place in ‘adaptive’ mode—
learning to do what we do better—or it may involve re-
framing and radical change (what some writers term a
‘paradigm shift’), in which the perception of the prob-
lems to be solved and the potential set of solutions
change (Senge, 1990; Bessant, 1991) The challenge of
a ‘paradigm shift’ is greater because it needs ‘outside
the box’ perspectives and involves high risks, and often
substantial costs; there is also a fear of ‘letting go’ of
old ways of thinking and acting. This is likely to be of
particular significance in the Romanian context, since
such a ‘paradigm shift’ is required.
Learning to learn—meta-learning—is an important
aspect of this process and requires the capacity to design
and operate learning systems (Argyris and Schon, 1970).
5. Learning organizations…
The basis of most literature on learning is at an indi-
vidual level, but recent years have seen a strong focus
on the concept of ‘learning organizations’. There is
debate about whether organizations themselves actually
learn or whether it is simply a learning process for the
individuals within them (Hedberg, 1981; Garvin, 1993).
The following points summarize the key themes in
this literature:
쐌 Individuals engage in a learning processes but the
organization provides the context in which this takes
place—some environments are more conducive than
others to enabling aligned learning.
쐌 Individuals interact and share knowledge, and this can
become part of the organizational culture—the pattern
of shared concepts, values, beliefs, etc. (Schein,
1984). This culture is an artifact of the organization
and, where strong, can survive the departure of indi-
viduals and the entry of new individuals who become
socialized into it. Thus we can speak of an organiza-
tion learning and having some form of memory where
its learning accumulates and which guides its sub-
sequent behaviour.
쐌 Much of the influence of culture lies in the informal
and tacit realm, but it can be captured and formalized
as knowledge and routines. For example, formal pro-
grammes of directed experiment and reflection (R and
D) can lead to increased codified and tacit knowl-
edge—the technological competence of the firm. Equ-
ally, programmes which attempt to capture tacit
knowledge in exemplified procedures also contribute
to making tacit knowledge explicit—e.g. in ISO 9000.
쐌 Learning is influenced by opinion leaders within an
organization (Rogers, 1984). Those responsible for
formulating policy must support the learning process
if it is to become an influential factor affecting the
firm’s organization development trajectory.
쐌 Several mechanisms appear to help with the process
of sharing and making knowledge explicit, including
the exchange of perspectives, shared experimentation,
display of learning achieved, measurement of learn-
ing, etc. (Garvin, 1993). At their heart, such mech-
anisms represent ways of supporting and developing
a shared learning cycle, as discussed above.
6. Problems in learning
Learning is not automatic. There are a number of
points at which learning fails to happen unless a poten-
tial blockage is dealt with. For example, many firms
stumble at the first hurdle by failing to recognize the
need to learn, or else by recognizing the stimulus but
choosing to ignore or discount it. (This phenomenon
often gives rise to the ‘not invented here’ problem which
is commonly seen in the field of technological change
(Tidd et al., 1997)). Others may recognize the need for
learning but become locked in an incomplete cycle of
experiment and experience, but with little or no time or
space given to reflection or to allow the entry of new
concepts. For others, the difficulty lies in organising and
mobilizing learning skills, while in other cases the dif-
ficulty lies in making use of the rich resource of tacit
knowledge—things people know about but are unable to
describe or articulate (Polanyi, 1967; Nonaka, 1991).
Table 2 summarizes the key blocks to learning.
In the Romanian context it is clear that many of these
blocks and barriers are present. The relative insulation
from the development of market awareness, the over-
reliance on old mental models about production organi-
zation, the emphasis on working to plan rather than to
order, etc. all conspire to create ‘non-learning’ organiza-
tions and militate against the transfer of new concepts.
7. Intra- and inter-organizational learning—can
networks help?
Most of the literature related to learning organizations
relates to intra-organizational processes, but there is a
strand concerned with inter-organizational learning—
learning with or from others. The advantages of this
approach are similar to those which relate to group/inter-
personal learning and can, at least partly, address the
problems identified above.
The potential benefits of shared learning include the
following:
 J. Bessant, D. Francis / Technovation 19 (1999) 373–381
Table 2
Key blocks to learning
Learning blocker…
Lack of entry to the learning cycle
Incomplete learning cycle
People don’t know how to learn
Learning is tacit, hidden, informal
Search for new solutions is too localized
Reflection is undemanding
Learning is infrequent, sporadic
Learning is not shared but localized
Learning is not sustained
쐌 In shared learning there is a high potential for chal-
lenge and structured critical reflection from different
perspectives.
쐌 Different perspectives can introduce new concepts or
old concepts but new to the learner.
쐌 Shared experimentation can reduce risks and maxim-
ize opportunities for trying new things out.
쐌 Shared experiences can be supportive and confir-
mational—strengthening the individual.
쐌 Shared learning helps explicate the system’s prin-
ciples, seeing the patterns—separating ‘the wood from
the trees’.
쐌 Shared learning provides an environment for surfac-
ing assumptions and exploring mental models outside
of the normal experience of individual organiza-
tions—this helps reduce the ‘not invented here’
stance.
It is thus possible to argue that there may be value in
designing and building networks which offer some form
of additional and complementary support for the learning
processes that go on in individual firms.
A relevant concept here is that of ‘action learning’,
pioneered by Reg Revans (Revans, 1980). Action learn-
ing stresses the value of experiential learning and the
benefits which can come from gaining different forms
of support from others in moving around the learning
cycle. Part of Revans’ vision involved the idea of ‘com-
rades in adversity’, working together to tackle complex
and open-ended problems (Pedler et al., 1991). This
approach effectively builds upon some of the principles
outlined above and provides a framework for designing
and operating what we term ‘learning networks’.
8. Learning networks vs. networks that learn
Formal networks (such as those set up to enable sup-
ply or technological collaboration) offer many opport-
unities for learning to take place—by sharing ideas, try-
ing out experiments, etc. But such learning, important
though it is, is essentially a ‘by-product’ of the main
377
Underlying problem
The motivation problem
The completion problem—understanding and support for all phases
The learning skills problem
The elicitation problem
The parochial/not invented here problem
The challenge problem
The reinforcement/reward problem
The sharing problem
The motivation problem…
purpose of the network. We would like to differentiate
these from a specific type of network which we are term-
ing ‘learning networks’, where the primary purpose is
to enable some kind of learning to take place. For
example, a ‘best practice’ club in which firms from dif-
ferent sectors gather together to share experiences and
to study new concepts would be a learning network.
This concept of a ‘learning network’ can be
expressed as:
a network formally set up for the primary purpose of
increasing knowledge, expressed as increased
capacity to do something
This definition implies a number of features:
쐌 Formal setting up, rather than informal evolution;
쐌 A primary learning target—this defines what
learning/knowledge is the network intended to enable;
쐌 A structure for operation, with boundaries about who
is in and who is outside;
쐌 Processes which can be mapped on to the learning
cycle;
쐌 The measurement of learning outcomes which feeds
back to operation of the network and which eventually
enables a decision to be taken as to whether or not to
continue with the arrangement.
These features may be weakly or strongly developed
in different kinds of learning network, but they represent
structure and process aspects which could be explored
further1. A growing number of such ‘learning networks’
have been established, and there is some evidence that
they can assist in the transfer of new concepts such as
continuous improvement (Bessant, 1995). Their rel-
evance is particularly in situations where there is a need
1
The exploration of the concept of learning networks and how they
might be designed and operated is the subject of a major research
programme involving the Universities of Bath, Brighton and Cam-
bridge. Details can be found in (Harland, 1995) or from the Project
ION website at www.labs.bt.com/people/callagjg/ion
378 J. Bessant, D. Francis / Technovation 19 (1999) 373–381
to increase the level of capability across a broad sector
or group—for example, in mastering new concepts like
‘total quality management’ or ‘world class manufactur-
ing’. Although such learning can and does take place in
informal networks and clusters, there is growing evi-
dence that purposive structures and mechanisms built
around formal learning networks can accelerate the pro-
cess (Kaplinsky et al., 1999). However, one problem in
this mode of learning appears to be maintenance in the
long term, particularly when initial sources of funding
(to support network operations, provision of facilitation,
etc.) come to an end. It appears that such networks sur-
vive only when there is sufficient ‘ownership’ among
members to take over their operation and development.
A second issue—again, the subject of further
research—is the type of technology which is the subject
of the learning network. Examples exist of a wide variety
of technologies whose evolution and diffusion have been
assisted through learning networks—from ‘hard’ sys-
tems (such as robots, rapid prototyping and electronics
assembly equipment) through to ‘soft’ technologies such
as ‘just-in-time’, quality management and supply chain
management. A major advantage offered by learning net-
works is in dealing with ‘configurational technologies’,
which require adaptation and modification in the light
of user experience (Fleck, 1988). This suggests that this
approach will be most suited to technologies which are
emerging rather than fully defined.
If we return to the Romanian case it can be argued
that there might be scope for setting up some form of
learning network as an explicit venture to enable learn-
ing to take place around the theme of new manufacturing
and the transfer of appropriate technologies.
9. Using learning networks in Romania
The approach described below formed the basis of a
pilot project, funded under the European Union’s
PHARE programme, to facilitate industrial restructuring
in Romania. It had two main strands:
쐌 working with a selected group of organizations in sev-
eral regions to build pilot learning networks for sup-
porting improved manufacturing capabilities;
쐌 working with a selected group of people, drawn from
institutes within the science and technology support
infrastructure (research institutes, etc.) to develop
their skills as co-ordinators and facilitators for such
learning networks.
This second strand raises an important issue; research
on learning networks suggests that brokers/facilitators
play a key role in determining success or otherwise
(Bessant and Tsekouras, 1997). But, as we have already
noted, the change needs for Romanian technology insti-
tutes and similar bodies is also one which requires con-
siderable learning. It became necessary to run a two-step
development process where the first stage allowed learn-
ing among the participants about ‘new manufacturing’
before the second stage, which involved the development
of particular facilitator skills for designing and running
learning networks.
The purposes of the CENTRIM team’s intervention
were clear but broad. We were to install a process wher-
eby firms in Romania could acquire influential con-
structs, paradigms and methodologies that had rendered
the average firm in the West relatively efficient and
effective. In other words, our task was to facilitate a kind
of technology transfer, but the technology to be trans-
ferred was more of a craft than a hard science: we were
transferring a ‘management capability’.
As change agents we focused on three dimensions:
쐌 our size target was SMEs;
쐌 our technology emphasis was manufacturing;
쐌 our population target was production managers.
This strategic focus provided an embryonic method-
ology for the initial ‘tuning-in’ trip to Romania. Looking
at the overall situation as a force field (Lewin, 1947) it
was easy to list hindering forces but helping forces were
less easily identified—they included ‘soft’ issues like
motivation, pride, education, commitment, and ‘harder’
factors such as a very low cost of skilled labour and a
range of exploitable assets and resources.
Discussions following this visit led to the design of a
number of prototype learning networks which would
have regional facilitators (drawn largely from the RTO
(Research & Technology Organization) infrastructure)
and which would particularly focus on trying to help
develop new manufacturing concepts within the emerg-
ing private sector. Firms represented included elec-
tronics, ceramics and instrumentation. This design was
largely opportunistic, building on links with key RTOs
and following guidance from relevant government
departments.
It was with this background that the intervention was
designed. Three main principles were adopted:
1. We would provide educational input. There was a
general lack of understanding of the current global
manufacturing paradigm. We felt that Romanian
managers could not invent this—we needed to pro-
vide structured coaching and learning.
2. We would work through facilitators using the ‘bare-
foot doctor’ notion developed in China more than 30
years ago. Respected people from a community can
make a huge impact—if given basic training in facili-
tation and key techniques.
3. We would seek to establish learning networks of
company representatives to provide support, shared
experience and a higher expectation level on each
participant.
 J. Bessant, D. Francis / Technovation 19 (1999) 373–381
CENTRIM staff developed the educational input. It
consisted of five structured workshops, each lasting a
day, at which production managers (the targets for the
intervention) would join together to learn specific tech-
niques for reviewing the performance of their compa-
nies. After each workshop they were expected to apply
the ideas in their own firms and report back next time.
That way ideas were tested immediately—a kind of JIT
(just-in-time) learning process following the principles
of action learning (Revans, 1983; French and Bell,
1995).
The topics for the workshop were chosen for their rel-
evance and accessibility. One was on waste, another on
quality, a third on continuous improvement (CI), a fourth
on human factors and the last on operations strategies.
Taken together, these represented key basic areas of
knowledge needed by a manufacturing organization.
It was envisaged that there would be six to eight parti-
cipants to each group, each from a different company.
However, we wanted firms to have broadly similar pro-
duction management processes to ease the learning pro-
cess.
A highlight of the intervention was the training of six
facilitators in the UK. A detailed manual was prepared
and each facilitator had the opportunity to develop skills
in delivering the content and management of the work-
shop process. The response was excellent and the
materials were translated. Armed with a mission, a meth-
odology and key skills CENTRIM staff participated in
the launch before withdrawing. By 1997 there were six
learning groups operating—evolving their own way of
working on the foundation of the CENTRIM method-
ology.
10. Next steps…
The project described above was a pilot activity and
one which ran over a short time scale. Six networks were
formally identified and initial meetings were held, and
it is significant that these extended outside the capital
and into other regions of the country. It is, however,
difficult to evaluate the programme, not least because
of the rapid changes and the resource constraints which
continue to obtain in Romania. However, at the level of
developing a network of facilitators it does appear that
considerable personal and collective learning did take
place and this laid the early foundations for further work.
On the basis of this experience we would suggest that
the model is worth pursuing further, and that it offers
an important addition to the policy armoury for enabling
technology transfer.
In particular it addresses some of the issues described
in the early part of this paper—especially the complex
and intangible nature of much of the technology which
needs to be transferred. There is growing recognition
379
that the problem of technology transfer is one of learn-
ing, and also that learning is not an automatic activity
within most enterprises. Learning to learn, and policies
which support this, is a relatively new theme but one
which is likely to be of considerable relevance in the
future. Although much of the early literature on learning
in organizations was largely prescriptive, or else it was
assumed that investments in individual training and
development would lead to improvements in learning,
this is giving way to more detailed accounts of particular
approaches to the development of learning (Garvin,
1993).
While much of this literature is concerned with intra-
firm learning, there is growing interest in inter-firm
learning and there is a valuable convergence with studies
being carried out of networking and clustering as an
alternative mode of economic development. For some
time it has been recognized that particular configurations
of firms in particular regions have been able to achieve
what Schmitz calls ‘collective efficiency’—that is, that
together a group of small firms can overcome the tra-
ditional economic barriers to development (Schmitz,
1997). Examples abound, but include the ‘industrial dis-
tricts’ of Italy, Spain and other European countries, and
the significant clustering observed in Brazil and Pakistan
around particular regions but also concentrated on parti-
cular sectors or product groups (Piore and Sabel, 1982;
Schmitz, 1995).
These models have become a focus of interest among
policy-makers, and efforts to stimulate the clustering and
networking of firms are underway in a variety of coun-
tries. One element of such clustering is that the process
of learning and capability-building is enhanced and sup-
ported—arguably through ‘action learning’/experience
sharing principles of the kind we discussed earlier. For
example, in the case of the textile industry cluster in
Italy one outcome of the networking was the setting up
of shared R and D (learning) among the many small
firms. This led, over many years, to the formal establish-
ment of a shared technology institute (CITER) and to
the development of a rich and robust learning network,
the result of which is a technologically strong and highly
competitive export-oriented industry (Murray, 1993).
The work described here also highlights a number of
potential sites for failure in building and operating learn-
ing networks. There is a real risk that, without external
pressures on firms to enter a learning cycle, and in the
absence of active facilitation, such experimental net-
works will atrophy. A number of policy programmes
have tried to establish learning networks—for example,
‘best practice clubs’—and have supported these with
‘pump-priming’ resources (Semlinger, 1995). However,
many of these quickly fall into dis-use once the initial
support is withdrawn (Danish Technological Institute,
1991). There is a need for further work on the design of
such programmes to provide effective long-term support,
380 J. Bessant, D. Francis / Technovation 19 (1999) 373–381
through better training of facilitators and intermediaries
(Bessant and Rush, 1995), and through increasing the
sense of involvement and active ownership of the net-
works. One interesting development here is work in a
number of countries to use the supply chain as a vehicle
for transferring learning. In this model the incentive to
learn comes from the need to upgrade competence in
order to continue as a supplier— but evidence suggests
that the model works best when there is also active and
broadly based facilitation of the process (Kaplinsky et
al., 1999).
At the level of the individual enterprise, the experi-
ence of developing the pilot learning networks in Rom-
ania has led to the CENTRIM team identifying four main
areas for future research and development. Firstly, we
need to understand more about the process of helping
directors and managers to take informed decisions about
potentially useful technologies—at present these cogni-
tive processes are something of a ‘black box’. Secondly,
we need to be clearer about helping facilitators to be
effective—especially supporting them when things go
wrong. Thirdly, it is important to see technology transfer
as an intervention into the sociology of the firm and to
understand that the techniques of organization develop-
ment need to be integrated into a development model.
Lastly, we need to understand when education, facili-
tation, coaching, reflection and challenge are useful pro-
cesses for the opinion leaders who are the targets of
interventions.
References
Argyris, C., Schon, D., 1970. Organizational Learning. Addison Wes-
ley, Reading, MA.
Bessant, J., 1991. Managing advanced manufacturing technology: the
challenge of the fifth wave. NCC–Blackwell, Oxford/Manchester.
Bessant, J., 1995. Networking as a mechanism for technology transfer:
the case of continuous improvement. In: Kaplinsky, R., den Hertog,
F., Coriat, B. (Eds.), Europe’s Next Step. Frank Cass, London.
Bessant, J., Rush, H., 1995. Building bridges for innovation: the role
of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy 24, 97–114.
Bessant, J., Tsekouras, G., 1997. Learning networks. Working paper,
CENTRIM.
Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., 1993. Technological systems and econ-
omic performance: the diffusion of factory automation in Sweden.
In: Foray, D., Freeman, C. (Eds.), Technology and the Wealth of
Nations. Pinter Publishers, London, pp. 77–94.
Danish Technological Institute, 1991. Network co-operation—achiev-
ing SME competitiveness in a global economy. Danish Technologi-
cal Institute.
de Gies, A., 1996. The living company. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Dodgson, M., Bessant, J., 1996. Effective Innovation Policy. Thomson
Business Press, London.
Fleck, J., 1988. Innofusion or diffusation? University of Edinburgh,
Department of Business Studies.
French, W., Bell, C., 1995. Organisational development: behavioural
science interventions for organisation improvement, 4th ed. Pren-
tice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Garvin, D., 1993. Building a learning organisation. Harvard Business
Review July/August, 78–91.
Harland, C., 1995. Networks and globalisation. Review, Engineering
and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Hedberg, B., 1981. How organisations learn and unlearn. In: Nystrom,
H., Starbuck, W. (Eds.), Handbook of Organisation Design. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Kaplinsky, R., 1994. The challenge of easternisation. Frank Cass, Lon-
don.
Kaplinsky, R., Bessant, J., Lamming, R. 1999. Using supply chains to
diffuse ‘best practice’. Centre for Research in Innovation Manage-
ment, Brighton.
Kolb, D., Fry, R., 1975. Towards a theory of applied experiential learn-
ing. In: Cooper, C. (Ed.), Theories of group processes. John
Wiley, Chichester.
Leonard-Barton, D., 1988. Implementation as mutual adaptation of
technology and organization. Research Policy 17, 251–267.
Lewin, K., 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and
reality in the social sciences. Human Relations 1 (1), 5–41.
Murray, R., 1993. CITER. In: Rush, H. et al. (Eds.),
Background/benchmark study for Venezuelan Institute of Engineer-
ing. CENTRIM, University of Brighton, Brighton.
Nonaka, I., 1991. The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business
Review November/December, 96–104.
Pedler, M., Boydell, T., Burgoyne, J., 1991. The learning company: a
strategy for sustainable development. McGraw–Hill, Maidenhead.
Piore, M., Sabel, C., 1982. The Second Industrial Divide. Basic Books,
New York.
Polanyi, M., 1967. The Tacit Dimension. Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London.
Revans, R., 1980. Action Learning. Blond and Briggs, London.
Revans, R., 1983. Action Learning 2. G. Wills/IMCB, Buckingham.
Rogers, E., 1984. Diffusion of Innovation. Free Press, New York.
Schein, E., 1984. Coming to a new awareness of organisational culture.
Sloan Management Review Winter, 3–16.
Semlinger, K., 1995. Public support for firm networking in Baden–
Wurttemburg. In: Kaplinsky, R., Coriat, B., den Hertog, F., Andrea-
son, L. (Eds.), Europe’s Next Step. Frank Cass, London.
Senge, P., 1990. The fifth discipline. Doubleday, New York.
Schmitz, H., 1995. Collective efficiency: growth path for small firms.
Journal of Development Studies 31 (4), 529–566.
Schmitz, H., 1997. Collective efficiency and increasing returns. Work-
ing paper 50, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sus-
sex.
Schonberger, R., 1995. Building a Chain of Customers. Free Press,
New York.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., Pavitt, K., 1997. Managing innovation: integrating
technological, organizational and market change. John Wiley,
Chichester.
Voss, C., 1986. Implementation of advanced manufacturing tech-
nology. In: Voss, C. (Ed.), Managing Advanced Manufacturing
Technology. IFS Publications, Kempston.
Womack, J., Jones, D., 1997. Lean Thinking. Simon and Schuster,
New York.
David Louis Francis is Senior Research Fellow in Agile Manufacturing
and leader of the Innovation Consulting Group at the Centre for Research
in Innovation Management at the University of Brighton. He is a behav-
ioural scientist specializing in competitive strategy, human resource devel-
opment and innovation management. He has worked with many organiza-
tions in Europe, the Far East and the USA. Dave has written or co-authored
27 books, including Teambuilding Strategy, Top Team Building, Manag-
ing Your Own Career, Effective Problem Solving, Unblocking Organiza-
tional Communication and Step-by-Step Competitive Strategy. During
1996 Dave led the ‘Partnership with People’ research team. The project
was established by the Department of Trade and Industry and exhaustively
studied how successful companies manage people in the mid-1990s.
 J. Bessant, D. Francis / Technovation 19 (1999) 373–381 381

John Bessant is currently Professor of Technology Management and Head
of the Centre for Research in Innovation Management at the University
of Brighton. He is also a Professor at the Science Policy Research Unit
at the University of Sussex. His research and consultancy activities centre
on organizational and infrastructure development to support innovation,
with particular emphasis on the problems of smaller firms. He is the author
of over 50 articles and nine books, including Managing Innovation (John
Wiley and Sons, 1997) and Effective Innovation Policy (International
Thomson Business Press, 1996).