A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN APPROACH FOR THE SUPPORT OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE BUILDING IN
NETWORKED ORGANIZATIONS

A Participatory Design Approach for the Support
of Collaborative Learning and Knowledge
Building in Networked Organizations
doi:10.3991/ijac.v2i3.999
Barbara Kieslinger1, Kai Pata2 and Claudia Magdalena Fabian1
1 Centre for Social Innovation/Technology & Knowledge, Vienna, Austria
2 Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia



Abstract—Engagement in collaborative learning and knowl-
edge building activities is still a big challenge for many
workplace-learning designers. Especially in highly competi-
tive environments people might be reluctant to give away
too much of their tacit knowledge. A feeling of ownership
and an involvement of the individual in the planning of the
learning activities can be important motivational factors. In
an international research project called IntelLEO – Intelli-
gent Learning Extended Organization we intend to follow a
participatory design approach involving individual workers
from the very beginning of the development process. The
planned user participation will range from the first concep-
tual design phase through the different development stages
until the final validation of the system. Our hypothesis is
that this involvement will increase the motivation of the
individuals for collaborative learning and knowledge build-
ing activities.
Index Terms—participatory design, collaborative learning,
extended organization, self-direction.
I. INTRODUCTION
Motivation is one of the key success factors for adult
engagement in learning and knowledge sharing activities.
In his theoretical work on andragogy M. Knowles [1]
pointed out the importance of involving adults in the plan-
ning and evaluation phase of learning activities in order to
enhance motivation. An advanced theory of Knowles an-
dragogical concept, called heutagogy puts even a stronger
focus on self-determined learning and recognizes the need
to be flexible in the learning where the teacher provides
resources but the learner designs the actual course he or
she might take by negotiating the learning. [2] Still, it
remains a challenge for educational experts to successfully
involve individuals at workplace in collaborative learning
and knowledge sharing activities. Senge [3] assumes that
organizations learn only through individuals who learn,
however individual learning is not a guarantee but rather a
prerequisite of organizational learning and thus essential
for any learning organization.
In an international research and development (R&D)
project we are tackling this problem by harmonizing per-
sonal objectives with objectives at organizational and
group level and by providing a learning landscape for the
individual that supports this harmonization process. An
additional challenge in the project is the fact that we are
designing learning and knowledge building activities and
its according technological support infrastructure in Intel-
ligent Learning Extended Organizations – IntelLEOs. An
IntelLEO represents a community that emerges as a tem-
porary integration of two or more different business and
educational institutions with different organizational cul-
tures (industrial, research and educational). Thus we are
not looking at a closed system, but at rather transitory
networked constellations for learning and knowledge
building.
In the following we will outline the context of this
R&D project and elaborate on the theoretical concepts that
guide our educational strategy. We will then present the
basic ideas that shape our approach for user involvement
and describe some first steps that have been initiated in
implementing a participatory design approach. Finally a
short outlook as to how we plan to continue this process
during the course of the project will be given and some
very initial feedback from the user involvement will be
outlined.
II. RESEARCH CONTEXT
The project IntelLEO (http://www.intelleo.eu) aims to
support learning and knowledge building activities of
adult learners that act under specific temporal conditions
and in specific contexts. An IntelLEO is defined as a
community that emerges as a temporal integration of two
or more different business, educational communities and
organizational cultures (industrial, research and educa-
tional) and leverages ICT technologies to support Learn-
ing and Knowledge Building (LKB) Activities.

Figure 1. IntelLEO Concept
34 http://www.i-jac.org

A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN APPROACH FOR THE SUPPORT OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE BUILDING IN
NETWORKED ORGANIZATIONS

The objective of the research and development endeav-
ors in IntelLEO is to explore supportive technologies for
cross-organizational collaborative learning and knowledge
building activities. The technological developments will
be embedded in an andragogical framework that puts a
special focus on the harmonization of individual and or-
ganizational objectives.
For successful collaborative learning and knowledge
building activities the motivation of the individual is cru-
cial [4]. Important motivational factors for collaborative
activities and knowledge sharing are ownership, auton-
omy, positive feedback, trust, personal contact, etc. Own-
ership of proactive learning and knowledge building be-
havior is more willingly obtained if the employees are
involved in grounding their personal perception of the
organizational objectives and goals, of the organization as
a whole and of their own rules when planning and devel-
oping their learning activities [5]. Thus, the project’s re-
search design builds on participatory design practice.
The andragogical experts in IntelLEO will define a
framework of activities and processes that take these fac-
tors into account and will create an environment where the
individual as well as the organizational needs are equally
considered.
The envisioned services that the IntelLEO technological
framework will support are currently: management of
social interactions, management and provision of learning
resources across organizational boundaries, provision of
appropriate learning and knowledge building activities for
individuals and groups, scaffolding of the learning process
of individuals in accordance with organizational objec-
tives and policies.
The new services will be explored and validated within
three different IntelLEO environments each involving
various actors from business and educational organiza-
tions. Since the three contexts for validation are very het-
erogeneous a main challenge for the IntelLEO researchers
and developers will be to identify a set of common ser-
vices that can be enhanced by specific customizations for
each specific case.
Finally, the project will also take a look at the broader
socio-economic context – beyond the context of the three
specific cases – in order to identify the possible applica-
bility and transferability of the proposed IntelLEO ap-
proach.
Within the context of this R&D project we will follow a
participatory design approach in order to involve all rele-
vant actors from the beginning in the design of the in-
tended interventions. The R&D team will continue the
dialogue with the intended users during all phases of the
project, from the conceptual phase through the design and
development phase until the final evaluation. Compared to
other international research projects that claim to follow a
participatory design approach [6] [7] [8] we depart from
three distinct, but very specific cases, each with a clear
problem definition. Thus a successful interplay between
the participatory activities and the IntelLEO framework
design is essential for the project.
III. CONCEPTS
In the following we would like to discuss some of the
theoretical concepts that are relevant for our approach.
A. Motivation, ownership and self-management in
learning
In the last few years Technology Enhanced Learning
(TEL) research in Europe has been putting a strong focus
on what we would like to subsume under the term “self-
management in learning”. A broad range of literature cur-
rently deals with aspects of self-regulation, self-
organization, self-direction or self-guidance of learners.
[9] [10] [11]. Depending on the context these terms are
either used synonymously or have a slightly different con-
notation. An important characteristic of all these concepts
is the shifting locus of control. The learner is taking con-
trol and responsibility for his/her learning activities. In his
comprehensive meta-analysis of the Anglo-Saxon litera-
ture on this topic, P. Candy [12], for example, offers an
overview of the various strands of research that can be
found under the label of “self-direction” in human learn-
ing. It ranges from ideas of programmed instruction,
emancipation and citizenship, to autodidactic efforts of
adults outside any formal educational system. A relevant
distinction that is usually made when it comes to research
on this topic is whether one applies a process view, e.g.
looking at the autonomous actions that learners take in
planning, performing and evaluating their learning, or a
product view, where the point of interest lies in the dispo-
sitions of learners to direct their own learning [13] [14].
For our work in IntelLEO we are interested in both as-
pects, but clearly the second aspect, namely the learner’s
disposition, is extremely relevant when it comes to moti-
vational aspects. In order for adults to engage in a con-
scious learning process motivation is one of the main in-
fluential factors.
As educational researchers and designers we believe in
the importance of ownership in technology–rich innova-
tion processes and consider ownership as a driving factor
for motivation and for supporting learner autonomy [5]. In
this sense we are in line with andragogical and advanced
heutagogical concepts [1] [2]. The perception of auton-
omy and the possibility to get appropriate feedback are
supporting the notion of ownership. These two aspects
should also be considered when it comes to defining the
technological support.
Motivation is a key to successful knowledge work [4].
In complex knowledge intensive working contexts it is
important to define adequate informal learning environ-
ments where the individual’s autonomy is respected with-
out interfering with organizational goals. Individuals may
take various roles and perspectives in learning and knowl-
edge building processes in different institutions and net-
works. When participating in collaborative activities that
follow different institutional and group objectives the in-
dividual need to harmonize her personal objectives in or-
der to stay on track and be intrinsically motivated. Some-
one's intrinsic motivation may be increased by strengthen-
ing the perception of autonomy e.g. via positive feedback
about a specific contribution from this person. The feeling
of competence may grow if a person feels responsible for
the outcome of a specific activity. Individual training of-
fers as well as the opportunity to get personal contacts
across different organizational, cultural and hierarchical
borders (face-to-face or virtually) may be additional moti-
vators for knowledge workers to stay on the knowledge-
creating track.
iJAC – Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2009 35

A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN APPROACH FOR THE SUPPORT OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE BUILDING IN
NETWORKED ORGANIZATIONS

Latest information and communication technologies
may have a supportive role in these processes. Digital
environments enabling social responsiveness may increase
the possibility to get appropriate feedback, also over dis-
tance. Individuals may be better supported to document,
monitor and self-regulate their cross-institutional activi-
ties. It is the challenge of the IntelLEO project to design
learning scenarios and responsive technologies based on
the above described theories and assumptions.
B. Knowledge conversion
A lot of previous and recent work on workplace learn-
ing and knowledge generation builds on the work of
Nonaka et al. [4] [15] [16] and the concept of knowledge
conversion. The IntelLEO project also makes reference to
this model, but with an additional challenge caused by the
specific extensions beyond organizational boundaries
[17]. Thus the knowledge conversion from tacit to explicit
knowledge and its spiral progression will be integrated
into an innovative IntelLEO context. Figure 2 depicts the
knowledge conversion model taking into consideration the
added complexity by crossing organizational boundaries
such as dealing with different organizational cultures,
norms and visions.

Figure 2. Knowledge conversion model
The knowledge conversion model that we will apply in
IntelLEO circles around four stages that may all be sup-
ported by specific services:
1. Socialization of tacit knowledge: Individuals are
prompted to accumulate knowledge in an apprentice-
ship manner, through physical proximity with col-
leagues, and transfer the tacit knowledge they have
acquired from others to their own mental frame-
works. In this phase it is important that individuals
have access to organizational resources, rules, values,
objectives that help them to direct their efforts. In the
case of IntelLEO, where the LKB activities expand
beyond the borders of one organization, mutual ac-
cessibility to this type of learning resources and cer-
tain social grounding mechanisms for synchroniza-
tion need to be supported. Technically, this means
that services are needed to support requests for or-
ganizational rules and objectives, as well as for rele-
vant content filtering.
2. Externalization of tacit knowledge into explicit:
Individuals are prompted to create concepts through
abductive thinking, to use metaphors for concept
creation, and to use models, diagrams or prototypes
to articulate tacit concepts. This is mostly an individ-
ual process that can be technologically mediated if
the individuals are provided with a certain standard-
ized language that supports the externalization proc-
esses. We envision such a language to be visual and
it should offer important elements to describe both,
people and their objectives, norms and value systems
on the one hand and interrelations among people, ac-
tivities, tools and objects of the knowledge building
process on the other hand. Currently, advanced or-
ganizations have been experimenting with such at-
tempts, e.g. via a portfolio approach. The standardi-
zation endeavor for externalizing tacit knowledge
should however not be too rigid and it is important
that the individuals maintain control and ownership
over their versions of knowledge objects. The former
can be supported by personalized services for learn-
ing content creation and storing. The latter may be
achieved by using a portfolio type of software.
3. Group-based combination activities of explicit
knowledge: in this stage cross-border group collabo-
ration is taking place. Individuals with different per-
spectives gather and negotiate upon the externalized
concepts. Supportive services for this stage may
range from social information filtering and retrieval
in order to find appropriate learning resources. Spe-
cific activity monitoring and feedback generation
services as well as human resource (e.g. mentor and
learning co-workers) discovery mechanisms for col-
laborative group may ease the collaborative activities
as well.
4. Internalization of explicit knowledge: self-
reflection and internalization of the personal experi-
ences gained via the interaction with others takes
place in stage 4. Self-reflection can be technologi-
cally supported e.g. via portfolio-services. Such a
system may support the personal planning of learning
objectives as well as their monitoring and scaffolding
via conversational activities. Additional features that
are relevant for the internalization phase include
technological support for creating and monitoring a
learning path, feedback generation, and human re-
source discovery.

We would like to stress that we are not considering this
knowledge conversion model expanded by the IntelLEO
characteristics of an extended organization to be a purely
linear process. The described stages shall help to under-
stand the shift from tacit to external knowledge, which is a
constant process that is taking place continuously in its
various stages.
In IntelLEO we plan to provide means for learners to
become aware of how the LKB process develops, who are
involved actors and resources, how interaction takes place,
which values and rules are involved, etc. The technologi-
cal support shall make the whole process more convenient
and more transparent.
IV. APPROACH
Based on andragogical and heutagogical principles
combined with the extended knowledge conversion model
IntelLEO aims to develop responsive services for cross-
organizational learning and knowledge building activities.
In order to create the feeling of ownership from the very
36 http://www.i-jac.org

A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN APPROACH FOR THE SUPPORT OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE BUILDING IN
NETWORKED ORGANIZATIONS

beginning we will involve the individual actors of our
learning scenarios in the learning landscape design proc-
ess of the IntelLEO project. Participatory design practices
will be applied in three different business cases where we
recently initiated the first phase of user involvement.
Our hypothesis is that by an active engagement of the
workers from the very beginning the feeling of ownership
may be positively influenced. Motivational aspects can be
addressed right from the start. A co-design of all involved
actors, namely users, educational designers, researchers,
developers, managers, etc. implies that all actors are
learners and may benefit from this close cooperation.
For the envisioned co-design we will apply participa-
tory research methods as well as some more standardized
ways of describing system requirements. The whole ap-
proach is summarized in Figure 3, the IntelLEO Design
Conversion.

Figure 3. IntelLEO Design Conversion
The participatory design approach is circulating around
the following stages:
1. Socialization of individual experiences: in stage 1
the individual experience of the involved actors and
their vision on the processes are documented. Indi-
viduals socialize with each other across organiza-
tional boundaries, they find stakeholders and identify
issues that need harmonization as they might diverge
on the organizational and individual level, etc. It is
their very individualistic view that they try to social-
ize. This process should be applied on different hier-
archical levels within the organizations and across
the organizational boundaries in order to get a divers
picture. At the same time, the researcher provides
some external visions or norms to the design process
that guides this socialization and later the externaliza-
tion process. Thus this stage combines a very indi-
vidualistic view of the involved actors with some
guiding design norms that provide a more objective
frame to socialize and externalize tacit knowledge.
2. Externalization of processes: In stage 2, independ-
ent researchers apply ethnographic methods in order
to expand the subjective views gathered in stage 1.
Following similar approaches [18] we apply some
ethnographic methods without performing a full-
scale ethnographic study that would be too time-
intensive and costly. The aim of this stage is to gather
a more neutral view on the processes and experiences
from an outsider. An immersion in the context is im-
portant for the researchers and developers in order to
better understand the actors, the system, the proc-
esses, the context and its constraints. Apart from pure
observations exploratory interviews will be per-
formed as well. The externalization stage is impor-
tant for defining a common design language amongst
the different stakeholders, horizontally and vertically
across organizations. The common externalization
language constitutes the core of the IntelLEO design
model as it is a co-product of the involved actors and
will be related to UML (Unified Modeling Lan-
guage) use cases, which provide a unified description
for the developers.
3. Combination, Interaction, Generalization: Stage 3
combines both views – the individualistic from stage
1 and the collective from stage 2, analyses the identi-
fied interaction patterns and deduces requirements.
Current shortcomings and potentials for improve-
ments in terms of process optimization as well as
technological support will be defined. The tacit
knowledge should be transferred into the system de-
sign knowledge. Again, researchers and users should
be involved in this process, e.g. via workshops. The
usage of UML case descriptions across the different
organizations will enable a generalization of the In-
telLEO model requirements. During this stage dis-
cursive co-development and formative evaluation to
validate these externalized constructs are part of the
participatory design model.
4. Internalization: Finally, in stage 4 the interaction,
design and development process shall take place.
Similar to the previous stages, all actors shall be in-
volved in this stage. Users shall be involved e.g. via
workshops where mock-up demos can be presented
and discussed. Since we create a temporary IntelLEO
context during this design process that is presumably
more supportive to collaborative learning and knowl-
edge-building activities then the previous working
context users across the organizations need to inter-
nalize this situation. Continuing the cyclic approach
they should then be able to socialize their individual
experience in the enhanced environment.

The important innovation in this approach, which can
be interpreted as a spiral process, is the fact that the em-
ployees/users are involved in all stages and are thus de-
signers of their learning activities, the involved processes
and the technological support system. The researchers and
developers play an important role in this interaction as
they provide some norms and guidelines to the different
stakeholders. They are mediators of a conversational
translation from tacit knowledge to explicit context
knowledge to some more formalized use case descrip-
tions, requirements definition and system design. The cy-
clic movement between an individualistic view and a col-
lective view during the design, development and evalua-
tion phase shapes the IntelLEO framework as well as the
design process itself.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The IntelLEO project itself and the presented participa-
tory design process started only recently. Thus, there are
currently no decisive conclusions that we can draw from.
In this paper we wanted to outline our innovative ap-
iJAC – Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2009 37

A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN APPROACH FOR THE SUPPORT OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE BUILDING IN
NETWORKED ORGANIZATIONS

proach in involving users in all stages of the design proc-
ess of an advanced technological environments for cross-
organizational knowledge sharing and collaborative learn-
ing and raise the feeling ownership amongst the future
users of the IntelLEO services. The empirical work only
started very recently and will hopefully contribute to a
more elaborate model of co-design.
What has already become clear during this first phase is
that this approach requires a strong commitment from all
involved actors and is a rather time-consuming process. In
addition, the fact that IntelLEO is dealing with three very
distinct business cases adds an additional challenge to the
methodological approach. The different organizational
and cultural contexts require certain adaptations of the
specific methods. However, the presented approach will
hopefully conduct to better results and an increased moti-
vation on the learner’s side.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to express our thanks to all our project
partners in the IntelLEO project.
REFERENCES
[1] Knowles, M. S., et al., “Andragogy in action: Applying modern
principles of adult education”. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.
[2] Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. “From Andragogy to Heutagogy”, Peer
Reviewed. Original ultiBASE publication. 2000.
http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/ hase2.htm
[3] Senge, P.M. (1990) The leader’s new work: building learning
organizations. Sloan management review, 32(1), 7-23.
[4] Osterloch, M. “Human resources management and knowledge
creation”. In K. Ichijo & I. Nonaka (Eds.) Knowledge creation and
management. New challenges for managers. (pp. 158-175). Ox-
ford University Press. 2007.
[5] F.W. Rudmin & J.W. Berry. Semantics of Ownership: A Free-
Recall Study on Property. The Psychological Record, 37, 257-268
(1987).
[6] Palette (pedagogically sustained adaptive learning tthrough the
exploitation of tacit and explicit knowledge) project:
http://palette.ercim.org/
[7] Mature project: http://mature-ip.eu/de/start
[8] ROLE (Responsive Open Learning Environments) project:
http://www.role-project.eu/
[9] Fiedler, S., & Kieslinger, B. (2006). iCamp Pedagogical Approach
and Theoretical Background. iCamp project deliverable 1.1. Ac-
cessed online 2.April.2009 at: http://www.icamp.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2007/05/d11___icamp___pedagogical-
approach.pdf
[10] Braun, V., Czech, D., Fletschinger, B., Kohler, S., & Lüber, V.:
Motivation und Anreize in informellen Lernprozessen beim The-
ma Wissensmanagement. Project thesis, Pforzheim University of
Applied Sciences, 2009. Accessed online 2.April.2009 at:
http://mature-ip.eu/files/2008OESeminar_Motivation-und-
Anreize-in-informellen-Lernprozessen.pdf
[11] Mayer, H., Haas, W., Thallinger, G., Lindstaedt, S., & Tochter-
mann, K. (2005). APOSDLE - Advanced Process-oriented Self-
directed Learning Environment. Poster Presented on the 2nd
European Workshop on the Integration of Knowledge, Semamtic
and Digital Media Technologies, 30 November - 01 December
2005, London.
[12] Candy, P. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Fran-
cisco: Josey-Bass Inc.
[13] Brockett, R., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learn-
ing: Perspectives on theory, research, and practice. London and
New York: Routledge.
[14] Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learn-
ing. A comprehensive analysi s of principles and effective prac-
tice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
[15] Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2007). Why do firms differ. The theory
of the knowledge-creating firm. In K. Ichijo & I. Nonaka (Eds.)
Knowledge creation and management. New challenges for manag-
ers. (pp.13-31). Oxford University Press.
[16] Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating com-
pany: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[17] K. Pata, M. Laanpere, Supporting cross-institutional knowledge-
building with Web 2.0 enhanced digital portfolios. In P. Diaz,
Kinshuk, I. Aedo, E. Mora (Eds.) The 8th IEEE International Con-
ference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2008), July
1st – July 5th, 2008, Santander, Spain. (798 – 800). Washington,
IEEE Computer Society Press.
[18] Maier, R.,& Thalmann, S. Informal learner styles: Individuation,
interaction, in-form-ation. In: Andreas Schmidt and Graham Att-
well and Simone Braun and Stefanie Lindstaedt and Ronald Maier
and Eric Ras (eds.): 1st International Workshop on Learning in
Enterprise 2.0 and Beyond, CEUR Workshop Proceedings vol.
383, 2008
AUTHORS
Barbara Kieslinger is with the Centre for Social Inno-
vation – ZSI, Vienna, Austria (e-mail: kieslinger@ zsi.at).
Kai Pata is with the Tallinn University, Tallinn, Esto-
nia (e-mail: kpata@tlu.ee).
Claudia Magdalena Fabian is with the Centre for So-
cial Innovation – ZSI, Vienna, Austria (e-mail: fa-
bian@zsi.at).
This work is supported financially in part by the European Union under
Grant FP7-ICT-231590 (IntelLEO project).
This article was modified from a presentation at the ICELW 2009 con-
ference in New York, NY, USA, June 2009. Submitted, July 5, 2009.
Published as resubmitted by the author(s) on July, 5, 2009.

38 http://www.i-jac.org