upper left quadrant when Clyde became acquainted with the program and attended the initial Green Belt class, which set the corporate context for the intuiting process. The first arrow (1) represents the transition of the initial insight from intuiting to interpreting. The individual insight about project selection set the project in motion and led to further insights, including the
secondary insight about using Pro.
57
Next, a set of arrows (2) within the group level links interpreting to integrating. The A thread represents the unfolding group learning about the M42 machine downtime, while the B thread represents the unfolding learning about Pro. The conversations that Clyde’s team had during the interpreting process also instigated distinct learning flows from fellow Green Belt project teams as they explored using Pro for their own projects (C). The learning flows continue The C thread of arrows represents this additional branch of group learning.
The third arrows (3A-C) show the feedback loop from the learning of the Green Belt teams from Clyde’s cohort to project leaders from new cohorts. The feedback loop happened in formal and informal ways. Best practices sharing sessions during Green Belt training began the dialogue, which continued in more casual ways within their natural work teams and networks of everyday relationships. The tangible examples of project applications from the integrating phase and the sharing conversations added to the Six Sigma program focus on process improvement to create the new foundation for the next flow of feed-forward learning (4A-C).
Clyde’s case showed successive waves of learning and sharing, resulting in further individual and group learning processes occurring concurrently. As a result, a larger group of learners, and a stronger network of learning built over time. The specificities of each successful application added to the body of knowledge and social connections the interpreting and
integrating processes depend upon. The increasing awareness and credibility led to faster adoption and integration of Pro. A large network of support built at the individual and group levels before moving forward to the institutionalizing process (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Case 1, Phase 2 - Institutionalization and New Waves of Feedback
The institutionalizing process is distinguished by the transition from mutual adjustments to routines, diagnostic systems, and rules and procedures. This arrow (5) represents the learning flow from the collective learning from learning streams A-C and the resulting new insights into how to leverage Pro for a larger audience and for a longer timeframe. From a sporadic data collection and analysis tool they began to develop it into a more systematic diagnostic system to validate improvements and to monitor for sustained performance. The transition to formal and sustained social and organizational learning structures, such as the required Pro training for full- time iBPI project leaders, became possible through the authority of a member of the leadership team. The senior level advocacy of these high level gatekeepers was necessary to sanction new rules and replace old procedures.
59
These new rules and procedures made the learning about Pro available to project teams (6 A-C) and project leaders (7) who had never met Clyde or members of his original Green Belt team. The learning process still involved social and psychological processes but no longer depended on knowing the individual who began the organizational learning process.
A new normal had replaced the feed forward flow and become the foundation for new insights. Overall, we observe a very collaborative process progressing from the individual, group and organizational levels through a sequence, which follows the high level order of 4I processes in somewhat less linear than the theoretical model indicates.
Clyde’s case shows that it is possible to institutionalize knowledge emerging from a frontline Green Belt project. However, the project leadership process, which enabled
institutionalization of the learning at the organizational and inter-organizational levels, is far beyond the scope of work defined for Green Belt project leaders. Even so, institutionalization became possible through a senior stakeholder who understood the organizational relevance of Pro. Over time, the leadership role was shared by the frontline leader who led the development of the insight into a practical solution, the process owner who influenced its sustained application at the group level, and the senior leader who championed the institutionalization at the
organizational level.
In this case, Clyde wore two hats, as both the Green Belt project leader and the process owner, which facilitated the transition to group-level integration. Also, by actively disseminating his knowledge and experience and consistently supporting others in using Pro, Clyde helped build a wide and deep network of support for Pro, which lowered potential barriers to
proven solution with a wide network of support, internal expertise and experience, and a history of success in addressing an enduring shared need.
Over time, Clyde’s leadership role evolved into the role of a subject matter expert. He continues his advocacy at the project and plant level. He says that there is much work yet to do. “We have just begun to scratch the surface of what we can do.”