Interorganizational Learning: A Conceptualization of Public-Private Learning Communities

Abstract

Human Resource Development (HRD) finds itself at a critical juncture given the rapidly changing landscape of work and a shift of focus in HRD research and practices. This provides momentum for the HRD discipline to explore new models of workplace learning that exceed the boundaries of one's own organization. Public and private organizations increasingly understand that by joining forces and cocreating knowledge, they are better able to address these challenges and thereby stay innovative. In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework for Public-Private Learning Communities (PPLCs) as a promising approach to prepare organizations and employees for the rapidly changing future. By drawing on the concept of interorganizational learning and learning-network theory, we distinguish essential building blocks that relate to the PPLCs' strategy, structure, process, and culture. With this conceptual paper, we aim to break new ground for HRD theory-building and offer novel directions for HRD researchers and practitioners.

Full text

Theory and Conceptual Article
Human Resource Development Review
2023, Vol. 0(0) 1–30
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/15344843231198361
journals.sagepub.com/home/hrd
Interorganizational
Learning: A
Conceptualization of
Public-Private Learning
Communities
Tijmen M. Schipper
1
, Kars Mennens
2
, Paul Preenen
3,4
,
Menno Vos
1
, Marieke van den Tooren
3
, and Nienke Hofstra
5
Abstract
Human Resource Development (HRD) finds itself at a critical juncture given the rapidly
changing landscape of work and a shift of focus in HRD research and practices. This
provides momentum for the HRD discipline to explore new models of workplace
learning that exceed the boundaries of one’s own organization. Public and private
organizations increasingly understand that by joining forces and cocreating knowledge,
they are better able to address these challenges and thereby stay innovative. In this
paper, we propose a conceptual framework for Public-Private Learning Communities
(PPLCs) as a promising approach to prepare organizations and employees for the
rapidly changing future. By drawing on the concept of interorganizational learning and
learning-network theory, we distinguish essential building blocks that relate to the
PPLCs’strategy, structure, process, and culture. With this conceptual paper, we aim to
1
Research department Lifelong Learning and Development, Faculty of Business, Media, and Law, Windesheim
University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, The Netherlands
2
Department of Marketing & Supply Chain Management, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht
University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
3
The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands
4
Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands
5
Research Group Logistics and Alliances, HAN, University of Applied Sciences, Arnhem, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Tijmen M. Schipper, Research department Lifelong Learning and Development, Faculty of Business, Media,
and Law, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Campus 2, Zwolle 8000GB, The Netherlands.
Email: t.schipper@windesheim.nl

break new ground for HRD theory-building and offer novel directions for HRD re-
searchers and practitioners.
Keywords
Learning communities, public-private collaboration, interorganizational learning,
workplace learning, learning-network theory
Introduction
Human Resource Development (HRD) –as a legitimate discipline (Ruona, 2016)–
finds itself at a critical juncture given the rapidly changing landscape of work on the one
hand, and a shift of focus in HRD research and practices on the other hand (Brandhorst
et al., 2023;Han et al., 2017;Torraco & Lundgren, 2020). Regarding the former,
employers and employees are confronted with complex challenges due to unprece-
dented breakthroughs in digital technologies and AI, the increasing urgency to act on
climate change, geopolitical and demographic shifts, and lasting effects of the COVID-
19 pandemic which led to abrupt shifts in work arrangement and dynamics (Rotatori
et al., 2021;Snell et al., 2022;Torraco & Lundgren, 2020). This rapidly changing
environment has tremendous impact on how organizations attract, develop, and retain
employees, and urges employers to increasingly focus on what skills and lifelong
learning mindsets employees need in their current job and in the (near) future
(Kohlstr¨
om, 2021;McDonald & Hite, 2018). In fact, employers estimate that 44% of
workers’skills will be disrupted in the next five years and 60% of the workers will
require significant training (reskilling and upskilling) before 2027 (World Economic
Forum, 2023). This urges employees to organize their own learning and development
activities to sustain or enhance their career prospects and update their competences and
skills (Poell et al., 2018). These developments call on HRD professionals to become
“architects of new learning systems that can respond to the continuous learning de-
mands of new forms of work”and increasingly extend the traditional boundaries of
one’s own organization (Scully-Russ & Torraco, 2020, p. 83).
The shift of focus in HRD research and practices reflects the rapid evolution of the
HRD field and the momentum for HRD researchers and practitioners to redefine the
discipline’s core theories, perspectives, boundaries, roles, practices, and models of
training, education and workplace learning to effectively prepare employees for rapidly
changing job landscapes (Crocco & Grenier, 2021;Han et al., 2017;Scully-Russ &
Torraco, 2020;Torraco & Lundgren, 2020). As such, Scully-Russ and Torraco (2020)
put forth an agenda for future HRD research advocating for the acquisition of new skills
and expertise, the development of innovative workplace learning models, and the
cultivation of new leadership skills to address the increasingly complex issues arising
from the rapidly changing nature and organization of work. This research agenda was
proposed in the context of emerging network structures of the platform economy
2Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

arguing that “the discipline of HRD must expand its knowledge and practices to look
beyond the idealized organization template that emphasizes the experience of firms to
examine the experience of workers as they engage in work outside the traditional
boundaries of a job”(Scully-Russ & Torraco, 2020, p. 67). One of the ways in which
the HRD field could expand its knowledge and practices, is through conceptual papers
that contribute to the “process of building theory, providing a bridge to practitioners and
broadening our ability to think, design, and have a meaningful impact on the field”
(Rocco et al., 2022, p. 115).
Amidst the rapidly changing landscape of work, one relevant stream of HRD re-
search pertains to organizing learning through flexible, multidisciplinary and inter-
organizational collaboration between relevant stakeholders (Gray et al., 2011;
Schruijer, 2021). More specifically, this entails collaborative arrangements between
private companies and public organizations (e.g., educational, knowledge and gov-
ernmental institutions) to collectively address the abrupt shifts in work arrangement and
dynamics (Rotatori et al., 2021;Snell et al., 2022;Torraco & Lundgren, 2020) and “to
develop innovative solutions to complex, unstructured problems”(London, 2022,
p. 18). In the context of the energy transition, for example, organizations from the
energy, logistics, and IT sector could closely collaborate with universities to jointly
reduce the carbon dioxide emission. In these public-private arrangements, HRD
practitioners increasingly play an essential role in designing and implementing new
learning ecosystems that focus on the continuous improvement of employees’skills and
work performance (Pereira et al., 2022;Scully-Russ & Torraco, 2020;Seeg et al.,
2022).
While acknowledging the rich body of existing research on public-private col-
laboration in other disciplines, HRD research has predominantly focused on intra-
organizational team learning (London, 2022;London et al., 2012). Garavan et al.
(2004), however, shed light on the community and societal level of analysis
(i.e., macro-level) in HRD research, with a focus on “how HRD enhances the social
capital of the economy”(Garavan et al., 2004, p. 424). More specifically, they describe
how HRD at this level is concerned with “the provision of education and the de-
velopment of human capital toward improving national competitiveness and the quality
of life of citizens”p. 423). However, HRD research has, to date, rarely considered
interorganizational learning in a public-private context (Scully-Russ & Torraco, 2020).
As a result, we identify multiple research gaps –which coincide with the previous
mentioned shifts in HRD –regarding public-private collaboration as a means to address
the HRD challenges associated with the rapidly changing labor market and the need for
continuous learning at work.
First, learning in interorganizational arrangements has often been considered as
merely sharing knowledge and ideas between organizations (Chiu et al., 2006). Yet, the
current challenging times require new, innovative ways of public-private collaboration
that go beyond ‘simply’knowledge sharing, and should instead focus on deep level
mutual learning and cocreation, using the unique expertise and perspectives of the
public and private parties involved (Nystr ¨
om et al., 2014;Smith & Thomasson, 2018).
Schipper et al. 3

Second, as public-private collaboration is generally described from a systems per-
spective (e.g., Chai et al., 2018), little attention has been paid to the individual agency –
the learner perspective –within public-private arrangements. This perspective is crucial
for organizing learning as “individuals are key stakeholders in HRD, because they are the
only ones who can decide what and how they want to learn”(Poell, 2022,p.3).
Third, although literature on public-private collaboration often stresses the context-
specificity of and dynamics within these partnerships, little is known about learning and
cocreating that take place in these underorganized work settings (Schruijer, 2020).
After all, understanding team learning in public-private arrangements “requires a multi-
level approach that focuses on individual members, their tasks and social interactions,
and the interaction patterns of the team”(London, 2022, p. 17).
The three previously mentioned gaps show the lack of an unambiguous concep-
tualization in the HRD literature of how to organize learning in public-private ar-
rangements (Li et al., 2009a). Hence, contrary to a rich body of research on team
learning within organizations (e.g., London, 2022), there is no agreement on how
learning should be organized in forms of interorganizational collaboration (Hodge &
Greve, 2007). In this conceptual study, we use the learning-network theory (Poell et al.,
2000) as a starting point to examine how learning in public-private arrangements can be
organized in order for new knowledge to be created and for innovation to take place.
This theory assumes that employees are the central actors of their learning and helps to
describe what, how, and where learning processes take place between the members of
the learning network (Katz & Earl, 2010;Poell et al., 2000). With the introduction of the
conceptual framework of Public-Private Learning Communities (PPLCs), we aim to
“break new ground”(Jaakkola, 2020, p. 25) within the HRD literature, by expanding its
perspective on workplace learning from the intraorganizational level to the public-
private interorganizational level. By taking a multi-level perspective (e.g., Carbery &
Garavan, 2007;Garavan et al., 2004;Qu´
elin et al., 2017) in our framework, we aim to
adhere to the ambitious call for conceptual papers that “bridge existing theories in
interesting ways, link work across disciplines, provide multi-level insights, and
broaden the scope of our thinking.”(Gilson & Goldberg, 2015, p. 128).
In the following sections, we will first argue why the concept of PPLC is important
for HRD research and practice. Subsequently, we provide a theoretical basis for our
conceptual framework of PPLCs with its essential building blocks for learning in
interorganizational settings. We conclude this paper with a discussion on the impli-
cations for both HRD research and practice, and directions for future research.
Theoretical Background
Expanding the Focus of Human Resource Development: Public-Private
Learning Communities
Since the term HRD was first coined by Leonard Nadler in 1969, the HRD discipline
underwent an evolution in which roughly three development stages –or ‘waves’–could be
4Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

distinguished (Han et al., 2017). These waves represent consecutively: (1) the estab-
lishment of an academic and professional identity for HRD, with a dominant emphasis on
learning and individuals; (2) a paradigm shift from a focus on individual learning to
organizational learning, as well as a shifting focus from learning to performance; and (3) the
expansion and diversification of HRD to unchartered and cross-disciplinary areas (Han
et al., 2017). Throughout this evolution, in which HRD became known as a multidisci-
plinary field “which owes its foundation to external academic fields”(Jeung et al., 2011,
p. 88), the key aim for HRD remained to enable “individuals, groups, organizations or host
systems to learn, develop, and change behavior for purpose of improving or enhancing their
competence, effectiveness, performance, growth”(Hamlin & Stewart, 2011,p.213).
Although mainly the first wave was characterized by struggles and confusion (Han
et al., 2017), HRD continues to be criticized for (1) lacking alignment with the or-
ganization’s strategy and business needs; (2) failing to demonstrate its effectiveness and
return-on-investment; (3) offering marginal programs with limited or no impact on the
organization’s performance; (4) providing content without a thorough needs analysis;
and (5) having insufficient knowledge of work and the workplace context (Torraco &
Lundgren, 2020).
As a result of this criticism and the major developments in HRD research and
practice, HRD researchers increasingly stress the need for working across and beyond
disciplines where representatives from various disciplines “work together to develop
timely, evidence-based, and comprehensive solutions that address the development of
people and organizations”(Ruona, 2016, p. 561). Yet, contrary to the extant HRD
literature on learning within organizations (London, 2022) and interorganizational
learning (Mariotti, 2012), only limited HRD research has so far focused on learning in
such transdisciplinary public-private arrangements (Chai et al., 2018), which we refer
to as PPLCs.
In this study, we conceptualize a PPLC as a social learning system (Wenger, 2000)
consisting of two or more legally independent public and private organizations that join
forces to address a shared and complex concern or opportunity –which they are not able
to address as a single organization –while at the same time also serving the interests of
the individuals and their organizations (Le Pennec & Raufflet, 2018;Schruijer, 2021).
What makes PPLCs unique is that they add a new dimension to already existing forms
of social learning systems, such as Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998), Pro-
fessional Learning Communities (Stoll et al., 2006), Networked Learning Communities
(Katz & Earl, 2010), Virtual Communities (Rajabion et al., 2019;Rogers, 2000), and
Innovation Networks such as Field Labs (Stolwijk & Seiffert, 2016), Living Labs
(Nystr¨
om et al., 2014), and User Communities (Hienerth & Lettl, 2011). This new
dimension relates to the explicit focus on learning and innovating in the workplace
context beyond the boundaries of one organization, using both public and private
perspectives, expertise and resources of the PPLC members to build a shared un-
derstanding and cocreate new knowledge, tools, products, or processes. More spe-
cifically, PPLCs are (1) cross-sectoral (public and private); (2) intentional (e.g., aimed
at solving real innovative issues that apply to all parties involved); (3) multi-layered: at
Schipper et al. 5

the individual, organizational and societal level, all actors may benefit from partici-
pating in PPLCs (Mariotti, 2012); and (4) focused on the development of the par-
ticipating individuals in PPLCs (Schipper et al., 2022).
Interorganizational Learning
A growing body of literature focuses on public-private collaboration as an important
hybrid organizational form that can yield innovative solutions to address society’s most
complex challenges (Le Pennec & Raufflet, 2018;Villani et al., 2017). Katz and Earl
(2010), for example, argued that “innovative solutions arise when people in networked
learning communities draw on outside explicit knowledge and combine it with tacit
knowledge in response to authentic problems”(Katz & Earl, 2010, p. 28). However, it
is unclear how learning in public-private arrangements is organized and promoted, and
what role HRD professionals (could) play in shaping and implementing team learning
on the boundaries of organizations. In fact, the focus in HRD research is generally on
learning within organizations, addressing different forms of learning such as formal
learning, informal learning, incidental learning, adaptive learning, and innovative
learning (Coetzer et al., 2017), whereas little attention has been paid to how learning in
interorganizational public-private arrangements takes place. A notable exception are
Garavan and colleagues (2004), who wrote that “researchers are also beginning to focus
on how HRD enhances the social capital of the economy”(p. 424). The authors
proposed a strand of analysis at the level of community and society that includes the
notion of learning communities. They argued that learning communities are “con-
sidered as an umbrella term to describe a range of situations where learners come
together to meet, share resources and competences, and meet unique learning needs”
(Garavan et al., 2004, p. 424). Despite their arguments for the importance of this
community-societal level of analysis, the HRD research community has yet to ex-
tensively explore it, nearly two decades after their publication.
Different terms have emerged to describe learning in interorganizational settings of
which interorganizational learning, learning networks, and network-level learning are
most commonly used (Mariotti, 2012). In her review paper on interorganizational
learning, Mariotti (2012) argues that “the lack of a clear-cut definition and common
terminology has contributed to generate confusion”(p. 218). She describes interor-
ganizational learning as a multilevel concept that involves learning at the individual,
group, organizational, and interorganizational level. Interorganizational learning can be
perceived as “the process by which actors in imaginary organizations create collective
knowledge by converting their individual knowledge into interorganizational
knowledge”(p. 217), and the developed interorganizational knowledge is “a common
repertoire of experiences and know-how from which the participating firms can draw”
(p. 219). Although this conceptualization provides a good foundation for studying
learning across organizational boundaries, literature on interorganizational learning
has, to date, spent very limited attention to conceptualizing learning in public-private
contexts.
6Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

Despite the very limited HRD research on public-private learning, we know from
team learning literature (London, 2022) and cross-boundary teaming literature
(Edmondson & Harvey, 2018) that teams with diverse team members “are expected to
develop innovative solutions to complex, unstructured problems”(London, 2022,
p. 18). In public-private settings, where team members come from various disciplines
and have different perspectives, “knowledge diversity expands the range of per-
spectives that teams can draw upon to innovate”(Edmondson & Harvey, 2018, p. 348).
There is some evidence at the individual level showing that participants in public-
private collaboration gained new knowledge and skills (e.g., in project management,
self-evaluation, and entrepreneurship), which ultimately led to personal satisfaction and
self-confidence (Le Pennec & Raufflet, 2018). Furthermore, a South-Korean study
showed how the national government closely collaborated with private enterprises,
educators, instructors, and HRD practitioners to jointly address increasing unem-
ployment rates, skill mismatches between the skills of new employees and skill re-
quirements from the organization, and increasing costs to reskill new employees (Chai
et al., 2018). Despite promising outcomes for participants, organizations, and the
government, the study also shows some limitations in terms of misalignment between
the government’s plan and the organizations’demands due to the “one-size-fits-all
approach”that coincides with the scale of such a national program (Chai et al., 2018,
p. 422). Edmondson and Harvey (2018) also stress that evidence on learning across
organizational boundaries has been ambiguous and that “the diverse knowledge of
cross-boundary team members will not be brought to bear on the task to boost team
performance, without focused effort to ensure the inclusion of unique knowledge”
(p. 349).
Learning-Network Theory
In a rapidly changing knowledge society where individuals are increasingly expected to
organize their own learning activities to update their skills (Poell et al., 2018), the
learning-network theory may offer a useful lens to study how learning can be organized
in public-private arrangements (Poell et al., 2000). This theory has been receiving
increased attention in HRD research (Lundgren & Poell, 2023) and assumes that
employees are the “central actors who co-organize their learning on the basis of their
ideas and interests, instead of reducing their participation to being at the receiving end
of a training course”(Poell et al., 2000, p. 32). Learning-network theory combines
actors, processes, and structures, and describes how learning is organized in the context
of organizations (Lundgren & Poell, 2023). The theory posits that there are three
essential components: (1) the learning actors from within and outside the organization,
(2) learning processes that take place between the members of the learning network, and
(3) learning structures which relate to the organizational structure and responsiblities,
the learning climate, the nature of the learning activities, where these activities take
place, and whether they are more learner-directed or facilitator-directed (Poell et al.,
2000). Learning-network theory is also used to describe how individual employees can
Schipper et al. 7

create and drive coherent and meaningful learning activities; so-called learning paths
(Poell et al., 2018).
Although Poell and colleagues (2000) provided four useful archetypes of learning
networks –one of them specifically related to external learning networks, which are
coordinated from outside the organization (i.e., professional associations) –the lit-
erature currently does not offer a conceptual framework for learning networks in a
public-private setting. Hence, we use the learning-network theory as a starting point to
study how learning in PPLCs is organized in order to build and cocreate knowledge
which, in turn, could drive innovation.
Conceptual Framework of Public-Private Learning
Communities
Conceptualization of the Public-Private Learning Communities Framework
Our PPLC framework (Figure 1) provides an integrative model to further examine and
organize learning in public-private arrangements. We arrive at this framework by
drawing from literature from HRD and other disciplines that have captured essential
building blocks for learning in interorganizational settings (e.g., Chai et al., 2018;
Edmondson & Harvey, 2018;Katz & Earl, 2010;Mariotti, 2012;Nystr¨
om et al., 2014;
Poell et al., 2000;Stolwijk & Seiffert, 2016). We particularly address the three essential
components from the learning-network theory (Poell et al., 2000) which relate to the
learning actors, learning structures, and learning processes.
In our framework, the overarching aim of a PPLC relates to addressing HRD
challenges that arise in the rapidly changing landscape of work and require a public-
private collaborative approach (illustrated in the upper part of the model). This, for
example, refers to the earlier mentioned challenges around rapidly changing jobs,
increasing skill mismatches, and misalignment between HRD programs and the or-
ganization’s strategy and ambitions (Chai et al., 2018;Torraco & Lundgren, 2020;
World Economic Forum, 2023).
Following our analyses of the relevant literature, we distinguish essential building
blocks that are essential in addressing the aforementioned HRD challenges, which can
subsequently be clustered into four pillars of the PPLC: strategy, structure, process, and
culture. We stress that working in PPLCs is a dynamic process (Schruijer, 2020,2021),
and therefore our conceptual model should not be interpreted as a static or sequential
model (illustrated by the two arrows in the model). Yet, following literature on
workplace innovation (Oeij et al., 2021), we argue that a logical starting point of a
PPLC is by jointly setting a clear strategy and corresponding goals in relation to the
HRD related challenges. Arriving at a shared goal is critical for a community’s viability
and can vary in scope (Li et al., 2009a;Vangrieken et al., 2017).
At the bottom of the model, we include contextual elements at different levels that
influence the strategy, structure, processes and culture in a PPLC (Edmondson &
Harvey, 2018). In line with Mariotti’s (2012) conceptualization of interorganizational
8Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

learning as a multilevel concept, we distinguish contextual elements on the individual
(e.g., motivation, knowledge, and skills), organizational (e.g., the learning culture
within an organization and leadership), and macro-level (e.g., societal and techno-
logical trends and developments).
In the following sections, we elaborate on each pillar and its building blocks. We use
HRD examples from various sectors to illustrate how these building blocks could work
in practice.
Strategy
In general, a strategy can be defined as “the determination of the long-term goals and
objectives of an enterprise, the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of
resources necessary to carry out these goals”(Oeij et al., 2021, p. 201). In the context of
PPLCs that address complex HRD challenges in a rapidly changing landscape of work,
a clear HRD strategy is fundamental and needed to incorporate a clear focus on people
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for Public-Private Learning Communities.
Schipper et al. 9

development (Gangani et al., 2006;Heraty, 2004;McCracken & Wallace, 2000). In
fact, a clear HRD strategy is essential to align critical business imperatives and the
development of people and skills within organizations (Gangani et al., 2006), and can
be perceived as a proactive, system-wide intervention that links the human capital
agenda to the wider organizational strategy (McCracken & Wallace, 2000). It entails,
among others, that HRD interventions are integrated with organizational ambitions and
goals, leadership support, HRD policies and plans, strategic partnerships with HR and
line management, recognition of the organizational culture, and continuous evaluation
(Garavan, 1991;McCracken & Wallace, 2000).
In a public-private alliance, however, formulating a clear HRD strategy may result in
complex situations as a result of the involvement of multiple organizations, each with
their own organizational strategies, interests, and purposes (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff,
2011). In addition, these PPLCs are not only concerned with organizational learning,
but particularly focused on learning across organizational boundaries (Mariotti, 2012).
In order words, PPLCs are challenged with formulating a collective strategy that
addresses the learning needs of all participants from various organizations involved as
well as the strategies of each participating organization.
For instance, in the logistics sector, the use of data and algorithms has grown
exponentially as supply chains have become more complex (Yu et al., 2018). Logistics
companies increasingly focus on implementing new data-driven innovations in their
primary processes. This forces HRD professionals and managers in logistics companies
to find new ways to equip their workforce with the right skills and to address potential
skill gaps. The strategic goal for logistics companies in this example is to actively
collaborate with public parties, such as universities and local governments, and other
organizations from the supply chain. This helps to find ways to jointly create evidence-
informed products, services or processes that support these companies in enabling their
workforce to meet the required demands of their work (i.e., re- and upskilling), and
driving their organization’s innovation and revenues. Universities, in this example, may
benefit from participating in a PPLC by examining and contributing to the state-of-the-
art innovations in these companies, developing new knowledge about the products,
services and processes being cocreated, and allowing their employees to learn new
skills and adapt to a changing, uncertain environment (Arghode et al., 2022). A further
strategic motivation for universities to join a PPLC is to ensure that their curricula meet
the demands from the rapidly developing logistics sector, and thus equip future logistics
professionals with adaptive skills to be prepared for a constantly changing labor market.
For (local) governments in this example, interorganizational cocreation is of particular
interest as they are looking for opportunities to stimulate economic growth and drive
the regional labor market.
In the logistics example, the strategic goal for learning is multileveled (Mariotti,
2012): individual participants join the PPLC to enhance their knowledge and skills
which allow them to perform better in their work, which, in turn, stimulates them to
pursue their career in logistics. Participating organizations join the PPLC as they
believe they can benefit from the different perspectives, expertise, and resources of
10 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

public and private organizations, which may be a catalyst to stimulate further skill
development and lifelong learning mindsets of their employees (Drewery et al., 2020).
From an output perspective, they also join as they believe that participation may lead to
cocreating new knowledge, products, and processes, which, in turn, make them more
impactful in terms of business revenues or societal impact.
Relating this example to the literature, it can be argued that there needs to be a strong
“shared curiosity in the problem among collaborators and a felt need for innovation and
adaptation”(Van de Ven, 2007, p. 274), with strategic motives (both instrumental and
normative aims) for public and private organizations to join a PPLC (Brinkerhoff &
Brinkerhoff, 2011). In the aforementioned example, this would mean that all parties
need to feel the urgency to jointly invest resources in finding new ways to address these
complex HRD challenges of re- and upskilling the workforce in the logistics sector.
Achieving consensus around a shared strategy between organizations, however, can
become particularly challenging given the diverging interests of public and private
partners, their different institutional logics (Ashraf et al., 2017;Smith & Thomasson,
2018), and the lack of a formal leader or structure (Schruijer, 2021). The public partners
in our exemplary PPLC in logistics may emphasize a focus on high-level societal or
regional development goals with a long-term perspective, such as increasing the digital
literacy and skills of the workforce in the coming years as part of their strategic
workforce planning (Gangani et al., 2006). Logistics companies may rather focus on
short-term business outcomes and return on investment, such as being able to com-
mercialize a specific digital tool, and may therefore not be completely open and
constructive due to potential competitive interests (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017;
M¨
oller & Halinen, 2017). This underlines the importance of comprehending the
different perspectives and aligning the PPLCs common goal(s) between organizations
(Caldwell et al., 2017;Van Bockhaven & Matthyssens, 2017). As such, key factors to
consider while determining the strategy of a PPLC and, in turn, key factors for success
in the public-private collaboration in PPLCs, are “creating common goals; overcoming
cultural differences; working across organizational boundaries; securing equal com-
mitment from all parties involved, including all stakeholders; and establishing forms of
communication as well as roles”(Smith & Thomasson, 2018, p. 194).
Structure
Due to their temporal and often unstructured nature, PPLCs generally take place in
“underorganized”work settings (Schruijer, 2020, p. 18) or “imaginary organi-
zations”(Holmqvist, 1999), without a formal leader or legitimate authority, but
with the aim to address non-routine HRD issues with a high degree of complexity
and multiple partner interdependence (Schruijer, 2020;Sw¨
art, 2016). Following
the learning-network theory (Poelletal.,2000), a central issue in defining and
forming the structure of a PPLC is concerned with the learning actors and learning
structures of the PPLC. This relates both to the participating organizations, the
representatives of each organization in the PPLC, and the time span (duration) of
Schipper et al. 11

the PPLC (Filierietal.,2014;Li et al., 2009a;Stolletal.,2006;Xie et al., 2016), as
well as the content structure of what PPLC participants learn about in the PPLC
(Lundgren & Poell, 2023). The ‘who is involved’question is –besides the definition
that at least two legally independent public and private parties are involved –mainly
depending on the specific challenge or issue the PPLC wants to address and how the
participating organizations want to promote the learning of individual participants.
Hence, Lundgren and Poell (2023) argue that organizations “havebeenfoundtodiffer
rather substantially from one another in terms of their learning network, and also to
change their learning network over time”(p. 180).
To illustrate the structure pillar of our conceptual PPLC framework, we draw on an
example of PPLCs from the construction and installation sector (Corporaal et al.,
2021;Van Rees et al., 2022), where small- and medium-sized installation companies
collaborate with post-secondary vocational education and universities (of applied
sciences) to address energy transition related challenges. As new technologies are
increasingly used and implemented in this sector, installation workers are confronted
with new requirements and client expectations in terms of their required knowledge and
skills. The PPLCs in this example are intentionally kept relatively small (6–10 par-
ticipants) as the participating organizations want to work on specific challenges that a
technical installation company is facing and want to be agile in their way of working.
The PPLCs are accessible to employees of installation companies who continuously
need to invest in their professional development, as well as students and employees
(teachers/researchers) of educational institutions who are responsible for translating the
gained knowledge and cocreated products in the PPLC into the curricula of their study
programs (Van Rees et al., 2022). By participating, they gain insight into the most recent
developments in the installation sector and work on their own professional development
as well.
Despite several studies addressing the topic of an ideal size of a network in terms of
the number of participants (e.g., Prenger et al., 2017;Xie et al., 2016), consensus about
a clear demarcation in terms of a minimum or maximum amount of members is lacking.
Xie and colleagues (2016) argue that a large number of organizations involved in
network learning may have a positive effect on knowledge transfer as it increases the
access to and flow of information resources (Wagstaff et al., 2022). However, in the
context of interorganizational collaboration in innovative ecosystems, it is also argued
that the likelihood of disagreement and conflict increase when the number of partners
involved gets bigger (Davis, 2016). As such, “more partners seem to create more
problems”due to the variety of interests, roles, relationships, as well as uncertainty that
comes with innovation in a constantly changing labor market (Davis, 2016, p. 623).
Including too many members in a PPLC may also disturb the process of establishing a
professional and reflective dialogue in PPLCs to promote the learning of its participants
(Davis, 2016;Prenger et al., 2017;Vangrieken et al., 2017). Hence, it can be argued that
the larger the number of organizations and participants, the more difficult it is to
engender a strong identification with the community in which learning takes place
(Stoll et al., 2006).
12 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

Another important factor related to the structure of PPLCs, is whether the PPLC’s
composition is homogeneous or heterogeneous, which is also referred to as the network
diversity (Wagstaff et al., 2022). Xie and colleagues (2016) examined collaborative
innovation networks in the business context and refer to the concept of network
heterogeneity, which is concerned with differences in knowledge, technology, ability
and size of members in the network (i.e., structural heterogeneity). Network hetero-
geneity also refers to actors with different professions working together. Lundgren and
Poell (2023), for example, describe the process of collaborating between HRD pro-
fessionals and business managers in terms of emergent partnering in four areas:
strategic partnering, co-designing content, co-delivering programs, and forming sus-
tainable alliances for impact. A higher degree of network heterogeneity can, but does
not necessarily have to lead to increasing knowledge sharing as a result of the different
perspectives on the same objective, which, in turn, could lead to higher performance
(Rock et al., 2016). At the same time, a more homogeneous community could result in
a more agile way of working in the PPLC with less delays and interruptions caused by
conflicts between participating organizations. Therefore, in the example of PPLCs in
the installation sector (Van Rees et al., 2022), only one installation company was part of
the PPLC which reduced the earlier described issues of conflicting interests between
private companies.
In terms of the ideal time span of a PPLC, there are various examples of the duration
in innovation ecosystems where multiple organizations work together on joint tech-
nological challenges, which may run from a few months to 45 months (Davis, 2016). In
the example of PPLCs in the installation sector, the participating organizations adopted
a Scrum format with cycles of ten weeks, consistent with the private company’s way of
working. During cycles of ten weeks, participants of the PPLC collaborated to achieve
specific objectives (Corporaal et al., 2021). After each cycle, the participating orga-
nizations reflected on the learning process and the outcomes, and subsequently decided
whether a next cycle would be initiated. This bottom-up approach is likely to create
participants’support for PPLCs as they do not need to give a long-term commitment
prior to participation when it is not fully clear what is expected from them and what they
can learn from participating.
Process
There are many elements that relate to the processes taking place in PPLCs. Most
elements discussed in extant literature focus on the actual collaboration process (Davis,
2016;Smith & Thomasson, 2018). In her conceptualization of interorganizational
learning, Mariotti (2012) identifies three main processes that constitute interorgani-
zational learning: (1) learning about collaboration (which relates to identifying who
possesses what capabilities and how to become a member of a certain network), (2)
learning to share knowledge, and (3) learning to create interorganizational knowledge.
The process pillar in our PPLC framework relates to formal and informal working
methods and procedures, how members discuss their professional practices, issues or
Schipper et al. 13

problems, how they collaborate to improve those practices, and whether reflective
dialogues take place in which participants reflect on the collaborative efforts and their
own learning (Prenger et al., 2017;Stoll et al., 2006). It has been argued that such
reflection is key for knowledge creation and learning (Katz & Earl, 2010). To
strengthen the learning and innovation outcomes of a PPLC, it is important to peri-
odically evaluate and follow-up on suggestions for improvement that emerge from the
evaluation. One potential evaluation method is Reflexive Monitoring in Action (RMA).
RMA “offers a useful set of instruments for short-cyclical mapping and promotion of
the various forms of learning at actor and network level during the various phases of the
iterative innovation process.”(Veltman, et al., 2020, p. 5).
The way of working and collaborating in PPLCs partly depends on the various
formal and informal roles participants may take in PPLCs, and the type of learning
network, where horizontal learning networks, for example, have a relatively egalitarian
organizational structure and organic learning processes (Lundgren & Poell, 2023).
Nystr¨
om and colleagues (2014) distinguish twelve role-related tasks for actors in
innovation networks that are also valuable in the context of PPLCs. These role-related
tasks range from initiating network connections, making decisions and influencing
others, to balancing actions and relationships in the network to avoid conflicts. The role
of the (formal or informal) leader, is often stressed as well (Nystr ¨
om et al., 2014;
Prenger et al., 2017;Stoll et al., 2006). This role is generally described as facilitative
and supportive to members (Prenger et al., 2017;Stoll et al., 2006), but it is not fully
clear what role leaders –who often do not have a formal leading position in these
interorganizational structures (Schruijer, 2021)–generally play in PPLCs and how this
influences the process and outcomes. Research about interorganizational innovation in
the computer industry also points to forms of rotating leadership, but it is not clear either
whether this would be effective (Davis, 2016).
In PPLCs, meetings can take place physically, digitally, or in a hybrid format where
several members are physically present while others join digitally (Li et al., 2009b). A
critical concern in virtual environments is knowledge sharing and developing a shared
identity and language (Chiu et al., 2006). Participation, knowledge sharing and learning
are affected by factors such as trust, reciprocity and identification with the group (Chiu
et al., 2006;Sw¨
art, 2016), which are arguably more difficult to develop in digital
environments. The formation of social relationships between community members
obviously benefits from frequent interaction (Ashraf et al., 2017;Filieri et al., 2014).
Another important element that relates to the process of PPLCs is whether a fa-
cilitator is assigned to the PPLC. A facilitator guides the PPLC members through the
day-to-day activities (Li et al., 2009b)and“provides possibilities and resources but
does not interfere in the process”(Nystr ¨
om et al., 2014, p. 485). A facilitator can play a
pivotal role in creating a safe and stimulating environment, and in community building
by coaching PPLC members in setting goals, sharing ideas and knowledge, and ex-
perimenting with new ways of working (Becuwe et al., 2016). An important condition
for facilitators is that they “should be culturally proficient and understand the local
culture in which they work in order to promote the transfer of learning”(Brion, 2022,
14 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

p. 4), which is particularly difficult in contexts with different organizational subcul-
tures. Variations in the role of facilitator can arise, ranging from a fixed role to a rotating
role among the PPLC’s members (Vangrieken et al., 2017), an external or internal
facilitator’s role (Van Rees et al., 2022), or the role of a ‘knowledgeable other’
(Takahashi & McDougal, 2016). A study in the context of a PPLC in the energy
transition describes how a facilitator enhanced the learning process of participants by
“asking questions and connecting all individual perspectives to the collective goal”
(Van Rees et al., 2022, p. 5). Another study about PPLCs in the context of logistics
shows how the facilitator structures the process by planning the meetings and inviting
content knowledge experts to sessions, sets clear rules for collaboration, and guides the
participants in formulating clear goals and monitoring the process (Hofstra et al., 2021).
Despite these PPLC examples, there is not yet a consensus about what this facilitator
role fully entails. Facilitator tasks may vary from process-based guidance, such as
scheduling meetings, tracking time or determining meeting agenda’s, to content-based
guidance, such as linking theory with practice (Schipper et al., 2017). A committed
facilitator is considered a determinant of community success (Li et al., 2009b;
Ranmuthugala et al., 2011).
Culture
PPLCs are implemented in the third space (Cornelius & Stevenson, 2018)–in and
between organizations –where they have to deal with existing cultures. At the same
time, PPLCs create their own (sub-)culture given the notion that for “communities to
effectively share their knowledge, they need to develop a common set of norms,
standards, and language that provide appropriate context for the community knowl-
edge”(Lesser & Storck, 2001, p. 840). PPLCs consist of participants who do not always
know each other at the start of the joint process. PPLCs are shaped by the social
relationships between participants, and how these participants learn collectively is
“mostly expressed in their ways of working together, patterns of interaction, and
dependencies with one another”(Yorks et al., 2003, p. 113). Additionally, the par-
ticipants do not only have individual interests, but also represent their organization.
Edmondson and Harvey (2018) describe these different or competing interests as
pragmatic boundaries between organizations in which individuals follow their own
situated rationalities where they look for what is valuable to them. Particularly in the
beginning of the collaboration, there may be conflicting interests, tensions, intergroup
stereotyping, distrust, and collusion in PPLCs (Schruijer, 2021). Hence, PPLCs go
through “a developmental process where relationships are built, identities and inter-
dependencies are explored, trust is developed, and a collaborative climate is jointly
shaped”(Schruijer, 2020, p. 2). It takes time “to establish a culture of trust”and this
process is vulnerable when PPLC members leave or new members join (Vangrieken
et al., 2017).
This particularly plays a role in PPLCs where public and private partners are not
used to such collaboration. This, for instance, applies to a PPLC in the health sector
Schipper et al. 15

where healthcare organizations, technology companies, and universities are jointly
working towards solutions that enable people with dementia to improve their quality of
life by making use of technology (IJsselsteijn et al., 2020). Participants from these
organizations (healthcare professionals, technology professionals and researchers)
have completely different interests and ways of working. For such a PPLC to be
effective –i.e., when people learn and innovate in the workplace context –it is essential
to establish a culture of trust. A facilitator may play a pivotal role in creating this by
enabling participants to take time to reflect, facilitating an open dialogue, and stim-
ulating engaging, creative, and enabling collaborative practices (Schruijer, 2020).
Creating a culture where people feel safe and motivated to contribute to the joint
goals, depends to a large extent on the group and power dynamics as “power shapes
group dynamics and consequently, team learning”(Yorks et al., 2003, p. 111). In their
integrating research on cross-boundary teaming, Edmondson and Harvey (2018) show
that knowledge boundaries between and across organizations can be “thick or thin”
(p. 348), depending on differences in beliefs, content expertise, industry experience,
language, interests, and other elements that relate to their distinguished types of team
diversity (separation, variety, and disparity). Filieri et al. (2014) studied a successful
pharmaceutical network in which multinationals and academia collaboratively worked
on innovative output in a high-technology setting. They found that frequent interactions
were important to stimulate active participation and to develop a cohesive network with
high levels of trust and reciprocity, where participants learn, and explicit and tacit
knowledge is shared. As such, group dynamics and the network’s tie-strenght (Xie
et al., 2016) play an essential role in PPLCs. Network tie-strength refers to the degree of
intimacy, trust, interdependence, and interaction between members of a network or
community. A higher degree of these elements (i.e., a strong tie-strength) will obviously
“lead to more frequent knowledge flows and communication”(Xie et al., 2016,
p. 5211). In addition, mutual trust between the members has shown to be an important
element in PPLCs (Nystr ¨
om et al., 2014;Stoll et al., 2006;Vangrieken et al., 2017). It
can even be seen as a crucial factor for the success of a PPLC as mutual trust can have a
direct impact on the group dynamics and the learning outcomes in a community. It
appears to be important in generating new ideas as “members are not afraid to try
something new”(Vangrieken et al., 2017, p. 55).
Contextual Elements
As PPLCs are highly contextualized approaches (Hadfield & Jopling, 2016), an in-
numerable, yet often relevant amount of contextual elements, may influence the
strategy, structure, processes, and culture of PPLCs (the four pillars of the model), and
subsequently the outcomes of the PPLC. Edmondson and Harvey (2018) describe these
contextual elements in terms of the larger social system (environment), the tasks the
PPLC participants are addressing, time (different time spans), and leadership. Even
though the contextual elements are not the core focus of this paper, we briefly describe
three levels of contextual elements that are often interrelated and may impact the
16 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

efficacy of PPLCs. These micro-, meso-, and macro-levels are in line with the dis-
tinguished levels of analysis by Carbery and Garavan (2007), who proposed a con-
ceptual framework for explaining manager participation in career-focused learning and
development.
At the micro-level, we refer to contextual elements that relate to individual’s aspects
such as motivation, job experience, skills, competencies, abilities, learning preferences,
commitment, and educational attainment, and the level of received training (Carbery &
Garavan, 2007;Dachner et al., 2019). There is a vast amount of literature on motivation
theories showing that “individuals need to be motivated to learn and the organization
needs to provide the necessary culture and resources that empower individuals to learn”
(Dachner et al., 2019, p. 2). Therefore, when formulating the strategy and deciding on
the structure of PPLCs (first two pillars of the model), it is important to take these
contextual elements into account before implementing PPLCs, as realizing the intended
aims largely depends on the individuals who take part in PPLCs. When PPLCs are
implemented, it is vital to address these individual characteristics in the processes and
culture of the PPLC (third and fourth pillar).
At the meso-level, we refer to contextual elements within organizations that impact
the interorganizational team learning process that takes place in a PPLC (Knapp, 2010).
This organizational level of analysis “understands HRD to be a specialized set of
developmental activities or interventions that focus on supporting the achievement of
organizational objectives”and captures “a range of organizational characteristics,
including environments, work processes, and group and individual variables”(Garavan
et al., 2004, p. 421). More specifically, this refers to the learning and developmental
climate in organizations, the professional learning culture in the participating orga-
nizations, leadership and organizational (HR) support, expertise of staff, time facili-
tation, and an orientation toward learning and innovations within the organizations
involved (Carbery & Garavan, 2007;Tynj¨
al¨
a, 2013;Vangrieken et al., 2017). These
elements also relate to existing socially constructed, historical patterns in organizations,
which can create tensions, instability, and conflict between organizations when these
organizational patterns are not aligned (Ashraf et al., 2017;Thornton & Ocasio, 1999).
Important at this organizational level is that HRD priorities “are determined by or-
ganizational decision makers rather than by individuals”(Garavan et al., 2004, p. 422).
In the context of PPLCs, this adds extra complexity as there are decision makers
involved from various public and private organizations.
At the macro-level, we refer to regional, national and global developments and
policies that affect the human capital agenda of organizations, as well as to the sector in
which the PPLC is implemented, whether governments and economic development
agencies are involved, and cross-cultural differences between members of the PPLC
(Carbery & Garavan, 2007). This also relates to the pace at which educational in-
stitutions can follow and address the labor market developments in terms of updating
their curricula without too much legislative hindrance (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008), and
to available funding for innovative public-private human capital projects in the context
of major transitions such as climate change, an aging population, digitalization, and AI.
Schipper et al. 17

Conclusion and Discussion
As conceptual papers are “a step in the process of building theory, providing a bridge to
practitioners and broadening our ability to think, design, and have a meaningful impact
on the field”(Rocco et al., 2022), we proposed a framework for PPLCs as a means to
address the rapidly changing landscape of work and the transformation of the HRD
discipline (Brandhorst et al., 2023;Schruijer, 2021;Scully-Russ & Torraco, 2020). We
argued that the recent technological and societal developments (e.g., the energy
transition) place increasing emphasis on new models of workplace learning in public-
private arrangements, which fundamentally change the role of HRD professionals in
terms of designing and implementing new learning ecosystems that focus on the
continuous improvement of employees’skills and work performance (Pereira et al.,
2022;Scully-Russ & Torraco, 2020;Seeg et al., 2022). We distinguished three research
gaps in HRD literature which we aim to address by proposing our PPLC framework: (1)
the current challenging times require learning in public-private arrangements that goes
beyond merely knowledge and idea sharing between organizations but should entail
deep level learning and actual cocreation; (2) learning in public-private arrangements is
generally described from a system perspective, whereas the learner perspective
(agency) and the organizational context is crucial for organizing learning in these
arrangements; and (3) little attention has been paid to how learning and cocreating take
place in these underorganized work settings (Schruijer, 2020) that characterize PPLCs.
In essence, our conceptual framework provides initial guidance, insights, building
blocks and a common ‘language’that can be used to facilitate the learning of par-
ticipants in PPLCs. In line with HRD literature on team learning and approaching
learning from a multi-level perspective, we argue that understanding learning in PPLCs
requires a multilevel approach (e.g., Carbery & Garavan, 2007;Garavan et al., 2004;
London, 2022) where the individual, organizational and regional interests should be
taken into account. Drawing on interorganizational learning theory (Mariotti, 2012) and
learning-network theory (Poell et al., 2000), we described the multifaceted nature of
learning in PPLCs and show how the learning-network theory offers a useful lens to
study learning in PPLCs. In the following section, we provide implications of our study
for HRD research by showing how we address the aforementioned research gaps with
our PPLC framework.
Implications for Human Resource Development Research: Addressing the
Research Gaps
First, with our conceptual paper, we aim to generate new ideas and to provide a
foundation for empirical studies and theory development in the HRD discipline on
learning in public-private arrangements (Rocco et al., 2022). More specifically, with
our PPLC framework we propose an adaptive and innovative form of workplace
learning that exceeds the boundaries of one’s own organization (Scully-Russ &
Torraco, 2020) and thereby expands the perspective of the HRD literature on learning
18 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

beyond the organizational level (London, 2022). As such, we answer the call from
Scully-Russ and Torraco (2020) for HRD research to contribute to the development of
innovative workplace learning models. We argue that interorganizational learning is not
merely about knowledge and idea sharing between participants of different organi-
zations, but also about collaboratively solving complex problems that arise in orga-
nizations faced with a rapidly changing workforce and nature of work (Crocco &
Grenier, 2021;Han et al., 2017). In fact, the starting point of a PPLC is a collective
HRD strategy that aligns the PPLC aims and motives –both instrumental and normative
(Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011)–with the strategies of the participating organi-
zations. Ultimately, the outcome of a PPLC should lead to new knowledge as well as
tangible interorganizational results in terms of innovative products, services or pro-
cesses. Ideally, this could be measured in either return-on-investment or more effective
or efficient ways of working, work satisfaction, career progression or other HR metrics
(Dulebohn & Johnson, 2013).
Second, we turn to learning-network theory to highlight the importance of the
learner’s agency in PPLCs and argue that HRD research on learning in public-private
arrangements requires a multileveled perspective (Mariotti, 2012), as opposed to a
system perspective that is often used in literature on public-private collaboration
(Qu´
elin et al., 2017). For PPLCs, this learner perspective is crucial as earlier HRD
research indicates that individuals are the key stakeholders in PPLCs who steer the
direction of the learning outcomes (Poell, 2022). Yet, the learner perspective cannot be
isolated from the organizational goals and interests, as organizational buy-in is essential
for the success and continuation of PPLCs.
Third, we further advance the HRD literature on interorganizational learning by
conceptualizing the conditions for learning in PPLCs. We do this by outlining the
essential building blocks of the process and the culture pillars of our PPLC framework.
Using the interorganizational learning conceptualization of Mariotti (2012), we de-
scribed how learning in PPLCs in characterized by learning about collaboration,
learning to share knowledge, and learning to cocreate interorganizational knowledge.
To enable this, both formal and informal working methods and procedures need to be in
place, there should be time for reflective dialogue and evaluation (Katz & Earl, 2010;
Stoll et al., 2006), and the role of a facilitator should be considered as someone who
understands the local structure and culture of a PPLC (Brion, 2022).
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Despite our contributions to the HRD discipline, this paper has several limitations that
call for additional research. First, our paper explores the complex and diverse field of
(interorganizational) learning in PPLCs from a conceptual perspective. Conceptual
papers may be grounded in a variety of knowledge bases and literature, but are not
comprehensive (Elsbach & Knippenberg, 2020), and our model is not empirically
tested. Therefore, future research should be focused on empirical studies in which the
conceptual propositions made in this paper are further used and tested.
Schipper et al. 19

Second, our framework only indicates what elements are important to consider for a
PPLC, but not specifically how these elements or building blocks should be oper-
ationalized and whether this differs between sectors and disciplines. Future research
could address this by determining what building blocks could be regarded as generic or
context-specific. This requires critical reflexive methodologies that capture context-
specific elements and the insider perspective of PPLC participants (Crocco & Grenier,
2021). More specifically, future research could focus on the strategy forming process
within the PPLC: how do PPLC participants collaboratively arrive at a shared learning
objective that is both relevant for each individual participant as well as the organi-
zations to which these participants belong.
Third, we described the multi-layered nature of the PPLC, but did not elaborate on
the tensions that may arise between the different levels of analysis (i.e., the micro-,
meso-, and macro-level) as “each level emphasizes particular philosophical orienta-
tions”(Garavan et al., 2004, p. 425). Garavan and colleagues (2004) argued that in the
HRD context, these philosophical orientations are typically related to the “freedom to
learn, whether learning is about harmony or critical reflection, whether learning is
emancipatory, whether learners are independent or interdependent, and whether
learning is about trust or power”(p. 425). In this paper, we did not address these
tensions and philosophical orientations and we encourage other researchers to take on
this challenge and to both theoretically and empirically refine and enrich our conceptual
PPLC framework. Future studies could focus on empirically validating the framework
in practice to better understand which elements in our framework are robust, and
whether there are any other effective elements missing in our framework. Future studies
could also examine what type of tooling, interventions or monitoring methods can be
used to improve existing PPLCs, and increase and test their effectiveness.
Another important focus for follow-up research is examining the role of the actors as
key stakeholders in PPLCs, and how they shape their learning paths (Poell et al., 2018).
This refers to understanding how each participant “makes sense of the multitude of
work-based and intentional learning experiences and their choices as they move from
one such experience to the next”(Poell et al., 2018, p. 316). Moreover, future research
could zoom in on the role of the facilitator in PPLCs which appears to be of crucial
importance to guide the PPLC participants (Li et al., 2009b;Ranmuthugala et al., 2011).
However, the various dimensions of this role, such as managing the process, proce-
dures, relationships in a dynamic multi-party and context-specific environment, make it
a highly complex role. It may be worthwhile to examine how HRD professionals could
fulfill the role of PPLC facilitator and, as such, act as the architects of new learning
systems (Scully-Russ & Torraco, 2020).
Longitudinal studies are also essential to evaluate whether and in what form PPLCs
are an effective organizational form to best organize for the current and future HRD and
organizational challenges. This also means that measurable success criteria should be
developed for different maturity stages of PPLCs. However, as becomes clear in this
paper, evaluating PPLCs should never follow a ‘one size fits all’approach due to the
highly contextualized settings in which PPLCs are organized (Hadfield & Jopling, 2016),
20 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

both in terms of sector, geography, PPLC maturity and the personal characteristics of its
participants (e.g., knowledge, motivation, and skills). After all, learning not only occurs
within the PPLC, but is also part of everyday life.
Practical Implications
The proposed framework in this paper provides guidance and support for HRD
professionals to organize employee learning at an interorganizational, public-private
level. The framework assists them in understanding, designing, and facilitating PPLCs
to address the learning needs of individual participants and align the learning objectives
with the strategies of participating organizations. More specifically, HRD professionals
could use the PPLC framework as a blueprint to adaptively configure the building
blocks to the unique context in which the PPLC is implemented. For example, HRD
professionals can use the model as a starting point to decide in a structured manner
which time span and composition (structure pillar) and collaboration and evaluation
process (process pillar) are most suitable for addressing the learning objectives, whilst
considering the learning needs and backgrounds of the participants. In the earlier
mentioned example of PPLCs in the installation sector, the participating organizations
adopted a 10-week sprint format as this was consistent with their way of working
(Corporaal et al., 2021). In other contexts, a different time span, composition, and
format may be more suitable. Our model provides a theoretical base to critically reflect
on these elements. HRD professionals could think of incorporating feedback and
reflection moments and methods, and developing and incorporating specific chal-
lenging experiments that participants could apply in their own work context.
Furthermore, as the PPLC concept proposed in this study offers an attractive and
multifaceted learning environment for (continuous) development of employees, it can
enable HRD professionals in designing sustainable career paths (McDonald & Hite,
2018). As such, the concept may also prove instrumental for employers to captivate and
retain talent in a drastically changing labor market (World Economic Forum, 2023).
This is highly relevant for HRD given “its focus on leadership, development, and
performance in the workplace”(Scully-Russ & Torraco, 2020, p. 85).
Another practical implication concerns the link to the internal learning and de-
velopment offerings in companies. In fact, “considering that business managers show
increased interest in organizing HRD activities”(Lundgren & Poell, 2023, p. 196), this
may impact the way participating organizations in PPLCs structure and promote their
learning offerings in their organization. This also applies to the impact on university
curricula where university staff may rethink how students could participate and learn in
PPLCs as meaningful learning environments.
Lastly, from a policy perspective, our PPLC framework may be of interest to
governmental and regional policymakers aiming to address HRD issues, such as
stimulating lifelong learning and up- and reskilling initiatives in the region. They can
use and explore the concept of PPLCs as a way to stimulate and facilitate regional
Schipper et al. 21

interorganizational collaboration that focuses on strengthening the regional economy
(Cascio, 2017).
Acknowledgments
This research has been conducted as part of the Change Gear research project. We would like to
thank all colleagues and companies involved in the consortium for their collaboration in this
research project. We also thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable feedback and input
throughout the review process.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research is sponsored by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Dutch Research Council (NWO)), grant no. 439.19.300.
ORCID iDs
Tijmen M. Schipper https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3196-3809
Kars Mennens https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2518-5737
References
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Jaakkola, E., Harrison, D., & M¨
akitalo-Keinonen, T. (2017). How to
manage innovation processes in extensive networks: A longitudinal study. Industrial
Marketing Management,67(8), 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.014
Arghode, V., Nafukho, F. M., & Boulder, T. (2022). Higher education institutions as learning
organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Human Resource Development Interna-
tional,26(4), 485–493. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.
2022.2121018
Ashraf, N., Ahmadsimab, A., & Pinkse, J. (2017). From animosity to affinity: The interplay of
competing logics and interdependence in cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Management
Studies,54(6), 793–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12273
Becuwe, H., Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., Thys, J., & Castelein, E. (2016). Teacher design
teams as a strategy for professional development: The role of the facilitator. Educational
Research and Evaluation,22(3-4), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.
1247724
Brandhorst, J. K., Compton, C., Solon, K., Huyler, D., McGill, C. M., & Barnhart, L. (2023).
What can grounded theory do for human resource development? An approach for post-
pandemic research and beyond. Human Resource Development Review,22(2), 180–203.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843221149309
22 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). Public-private partnerships: Perspectives on
purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Administration and Development,
31(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.584
Brion, C. (2022). The impact of local culture on adult learning transfer: Implications for human
resources professionals. Human Resource Development International,26(3), 331–340,
Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2065444
Caldwell, N. D., Roehrich, J. K., & George, G. (2017). Social value creation and relational
coordination in public-private collaborations. Journal of Management Studies,54(6),
906–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12268
Carbery, R., & Garavan, T. N. (2007). Conceptualizing the participation of managers in careerr-
focused learning and development: A framework. Human Resource Development Review,
6(4), 394–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307307552
Cascio, W. F. (2017). Training trends: Macro, micro, and policy issues. Human Resource
Management Review,29(2), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.11.001
Chai, D. S., Kim, S., & Kim, M. (2018). A work and learning dual system model for talent
development in South Korea: A multiple stakeholder view. Advances in Developing Human
Resources,20(4), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422318803085
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision
Support Systems,42(3), 1872–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001
Coetzer, A., Kock, H., & Wallo, A. (2017). Distinctive characteristics of small businesses as sites
for informal learning. Human Resource Development Review,16(2), 111–134. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1534484317704291
Cornelius, S., & Stevenson, B. (2018). International online collaboration as a boundary crossing
activity for vocational educators. Journal of Vocational Education and Training,71(2),
157–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2018.1464053
Corporaal, S., Disberg-van Geloven, M., Endedijk, M., & Hubers, M. (2021). Gas erop!
Ontwerpprincipes van learning communities als aanjager voor de energietransitie. En-
schede, the Netherlands: TechYourFuture.
Crocco, O. S., & Grenier, R. S. (2021). Not all those who wander are lost: Critically reflective
research for a new HRD landscape. Advances in Developing Human Resources,23(1),
55–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422320973425
Dachner, A. M., Ellingson, J. E., Noe, R. A., & Saxton, B. M. (2019). The future of employee
development. Human Resource Management Review,31(2), 100732. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.hrmr.2019.100732
Davis, J. P. (2016). The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships: Collaborating with
multiple partners in innovation ecosystems. Administrative Science Quarterly,61(4),
621–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216649350
Drewery, D. W., Sproule, R., & Pretti, T. J. (2020). Lifelong learning mindset and career success:
Evidence from the field of accounting and finance. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based
Learning,10(3), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-03-2019-0041
Schipper et al. 23

Dulebohn, J. H., & Johnson, R. D. (2013). Human resource metrics and decision support: A
classification framework. Human Resource Management Review,23(1), 71–83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.005
Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J. F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating
research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review,
28(4), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.002
Elsbach, K. D., & Knippenberg, D. (2020). Creating high-impact literature reviews: An argument
for ‘integrative reviews’.Journal of Management Studies,57(6), 1277–1289. https://doi.
org/10.1111/joms.12581
Filieri, R., McNally, R. C., O’Dwyer, M., & O’Malley, L. (2014). Structural social capital
evolution and knowledge transfer: Evidence from an Irish pharmaceutical network. In-
dustrial Marketing Management,43(3), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.
2013.12.011
Gangani, N., McLean, G. N., & Braden, R. A. (2006). A competency-based human resource
development strategy. Performance Improvement Quarterly,19(1), 127–140. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2006.tb00361.x
Garavan, T. N. (1991). Strategic human resource development. Journal of European Industrial
Training,15(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000000219
Garavan, T. N., McGuire, D., & O’Donnell, D. (2004). Exploring human resource development:
A levels of analysis approach. Human Resource Development Review,3(4), 417–441.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484304271669
Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’comment: So, what is a conceptual paper. Group
& Organization Management,40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
Gray, D., Sundstrom, E., Tornatzky, L. G., & McGowen, L. (2011). When triple Helix unravels: A
multi-case analysis of failures in industry–University cooperative research centres. Industry
and Higher Education,25(5), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2011.0057
Hadfield, M., & Jopling, M. (2016). Problematizing lesson study and its impacts: Studying a
highly contextualised approach to professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education,
60, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.001
Hamlin, B., & Stewart, J. (2011). What is HRD? A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD
domain. Journal of European Industrial Training,35(3), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03090591111120377
Han, S., Chae, C., Han, S. J., & Yoon, S. W. (2017). Conceptual organization and identity of
HRD: Analyses of evolving definitions, influence, and connections. Human Resource
Development Review,16(3), 294–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317719822
Heraty, N. (2004). Towards an architecture of organization-led learning. Human Resource
Management Review,14(4), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.10.007
Hienerth, C., & Lettl, C. (2011). Exploring how peer communities enable lead user innovations to
become standard equipment in the industry: Community pull effects. Journal of Product
Innovation Management,28(s1), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.
00869.x
24 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2007). Public-Private Partnerships: An international performance
review. Public Administration Review,67(3), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2007.00736.x
Hofstra, N., Vodegel, M., Tooren, M. v. d., Mennens, K., Schipper, T., Preenen, P., & Moeke, D.
(2021). Learning communities in de Logistiek: De TIP-Ontwikkelmethode (pp. 128–141).
Logistiek+ Tijdschrift voor Toegepaste Logistiek (special edition). https://wp.
kennisbanksocialeinnovatie.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Logistiek-PLUS-Hofstra-et-
al-2021-LCs-in-de-Logistiek.pdf
Holmqvist, M. (1999). Learning in imaginary organizations: Creating interorganizational
knowledge. Journal of Organizational Change Management,12(5), 419–438. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09534819910289101
Ijsselsteijn, W., Tummers-Heemels, A., & Brankaert, R. (2020). Warm technology: A novel
perspective on design for and with people living with dementia. In R. Brankaert, & G.
Kenning (Eds.), HCI and design in the context of dementia. Human–Computer interaction
series. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/97
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review,10(1-2),
18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Jeung, C., Yoon, H. J., Park, S., & Jo, S. J. (2011). The contributions of human resource de-
velopment research across disciplines: A citation and content analysis. Human Resource
Development Quarterly,22(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20062
Katz, S., & Earl, L. (2010). Learning about networked learning communities. School Effec-
tiveness and School Improvement,21(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09243450903569718
Knapp, R. (2010). Collective (team) learning process models: A conceptual review. Human
Resource Development Review,9(3), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310371449
Kohlstr¨
om, K. (2021). Professional development in the Swedish police organization: Police
officers’learning pathways. Human Resource Development Quarterly,33(4), 339–359.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21450
Le Pennec, M., & Raufflet, E. (2018). Value creation in inter-organizational collaboration: An
empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics,148(4), 817–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-015-3012-7
Lesser, E. L., & Storck, J. (2004). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM
Systems Journal,40(4), 831–841. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195165128.003.0007
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009b). Use of
communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review. Im-
plementation Science,4(1), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-27
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009a).
Evolution of Wenger’s concept of community of practice. Implementation Science,4(1). 27,
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-11
London, M. (2022). Team learning and the human resource development/human resource
management interface. Human Resource Development Review,21(1), 15–23. https://doi.
org/10.1177/15344843211062677
Schipper et al. 25

London, M., Sobel-Lojeski, K., & Reilly, R. (2012). Leading generative teams: A model of
metacognition and balanced leadership. Human Resource Development Review,11(1),
31–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311430628
Lundgren, H., & Poell, R. F. (2023). How do HRD professionals and business managers interact
in organizing HRD activities? Human Resource Development Quarterly,34(2), 177–199.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21485
Mariotti, F. (2012). Exploring interorganizational learning: A review of the literature and future
directions. Knowledge and Process Management,19(4), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/
kpm.1395
McCracken, M., & Wallace, M. (2000). Towards a redefinition of strategic HRD. Journal of
European Industrial Training,24(5), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590010372056
McDonald, K. S., & Hite, L. M. (2018). Conceptualizing and creating sustainable careers. Human
Resource Development Review,17(4), 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318796318
M¨
oller, K., & Halinen, A. (2017). Managing business and innovation networks - From strategic
nets to business fields and ecosystems. Industrial Marketing Management,67(7), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.018
Nystr¨
om, A. G., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Kortelainen, M. (2014). Actor roles and role
patterns influencing innovation in living labs. Industrial Marketing Management,43(3),
483–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.016
Oeij, P. R. A., Preenen, P. T. Y., & Dhondt, S. (2021). Workplace innovation as a process:
Examples from europe. In A. McMurray, N. Muenjohn, & C. Weerakoon (Eds.), The
Palgrave handbook of workplace innovation (pp. 199–221). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Pereira, G. U., De Lara Machado, W., & De Oliveira, M. Z. (2022). Organizational learning
culture in industry 4.0: Relationships with work engagement and turnover intention. Human
Resource Development International,25(5), 557–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.
2021.1976020
Poell, R. F. (2022). Human resource development should aim to make closed contexts more open:
A meta reaction to Wang and Doty, Russ-Eft, and Yoon. Human Resource Develpoment
Review,21(4), 465–472. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/
15344843221134654
Poell, R. F., Chivers, G. E., Van der Krogt, F. J., & Wildemeersch, D. A. (2000). Learning-
network theory. Organizing the dynamic relationship between learning and work. Man-
agement Learning,31(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507600311004
Poell, R. F., Lundgren, H., Bang, A., Justice, S. B., Marsick, V. J., Sung, S. Y., & Yorks, L. (2018).
How do employees’individual learning paths differ across occupations? A review of
10 years of empirical research. Journal of Workplace Learning,30(5), 315–334. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JWL-01-2018-0019
Prenger, R., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts, A. (2017). Factors influencing teachers’profes-
sional development in networked professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher
Education,68(3), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.014
26 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

Qu´
elin, B. V., Kivleniece, I., & Lazzarini, S. (2017). Public-private collaboration, Hybridity and
social value: Towards new theoretical perspectives. Journal of Management Studies,54(6),
763–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12274
Rajabion, L., Nazari, N., Bandarchi, M., Farashiani, A., & Haddad, S. (2019). Knowledge
sharing mechanisms in virtual communities: A review of the current literature and rec-
ommendations for future research. Human Systems Management,38(4), 365–384. https://
doi.org/10.3233/HSM-190516
Ranmuthugala, G., Cunningham, F. C., Plumb, J. J., Long, J., Georgiou, A., Westbrook, J. I., &
Braithwaite, J. (2011). A realist evaluation of the role of communities of practice in
changing healthcare practice. Implementation Science,6(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/
1748-5908-6-49
Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S., & Silberman, D. (2022). Differentiating between conceptual and
theory articles: Focus, goals, and approaches. Human Resource Development Review,21(1),
113–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843211069795
Rock, D., Grant, H., & Grey, J. (2016). Diverse teams feel less comfortable - and that’s why they
perform better (95). Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/09/diverse-teams-feel-
less-comfortable-and-thats-why-they-perform-bet
Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in virtual
learning communities. Educational Technology & Society,3(3), 384–392. http://www.jstor.
org/stable/jeductechsoci.3.3.384
Rotatori, D., Lee, E. J., & Sleeva, S. (2021). The evolution of the workforce during the fourth
industrial revolution. Human Resource Development International,24(1), 92–103. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1767453
Ruona, W. E. A. (2016). Evolving Human Resource Developent. Advances in Developing
Human Resources,18(4), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316660968
Schipper, T., Goei, S. L., de Vries, S., & van Veen, K. (2017). Professional growth in adaptive
teaching competence as a result of Lesson Study. Teaching and Teacher Education,68(8),
289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.015
Schipper, T., Vos, M., & Wallner, C. (2022). Landelijk position paper learning communities (in
opdracht van NWO). [National position paper learning communits (Commissioned by the
Dutch research council NWO)]. Windesheim Univresity of Applied Sciences.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of
leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy,22(1),
181–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807311291
Schruijer, S. (2020). The dynamics of interorganizational collaborative relationships: Intro-
duction. Administrative Sciences,10(3), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10030053
Schruijer, S. (2021). The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships. In Oxford research
encyclopedia of psychology. University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/
9780190236557.013.512
Scully-Russ, E., & Torraco, R. (2020). The changing nature and organization of work: An
integrative review of the literature. Human Resource Development Review,19(1), 66–93.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319886394
Schipper et al. 27

Seeg, B., Gauglitz, I. K., & Schütz, A. (2022). Explaining and enhancing training transfer: A
consumer-centric evaluation of a leadership training. Human Resource Development In-
ternational,25(5), 506–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2021.1904351
Smith, E. M., & Thomasson, A. (2018). The use of partnering concept for public-private
collaboration: How well does it really work? Public Organization Review,18(2), 191–206.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-016-0368-9
Snell, S. A., Swart, J., Morris, S., & Boon, C. (2022). The HR ecosystem: Emerging trends and a
future research agenda. Human Resource Management,62(1), 5–14. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22158
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change,7(4), 221–258.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
Stolwijk, C., & Seiffert, L. (2016). Fieldlab als aanjager van het innovatie ecosysteem [Fieldlab
as booster for the innovation ecosystem]. Delft, the Netherlands: TNO.
Sw¨
ard, A. (2016). Trust, reciprocity, and actions: The development of trust in termporary inter-
organizational relations. Organization Studies,37(12), 1841–1860. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0170840616655488
Takahashi, A., & McDougal, T. (2016). Collaborative lesson research: Maximizing the impact of
lesson study. ZDM Mathematics Education,48(4), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11858-015-0752-x
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power
in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–
1990. American Journal of Sociology,105(3), 801–843. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361
Torraco, R. J., & Lundgren, H. (2020). What HRD is doing - what HRD should be doing: The
case for transforming HRD. Human Resource Development Review,19(1), 39–65. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1534484319877058
Tynj¨
al¨
a, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and
Learning,6(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z
Van Bockhaven, W., & Matthyssens, P. (2017). Mobilizing a network to develop a field: En-
riching the business actor’s mobilization analysis toolkit. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment,67(3), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.001
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research.
Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context
for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education,61,
47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001
Van Rees, M., Disberg-van Geloven, M., Kornet, A., Corporaal, S., & Endedijk, M. (2022). A
first attempt in shaping learning communities for the energy transition. CLIMA
2022 Conference. https://doi.org/10.34641/clima.2022.231
Veltman, M., Verbiest, S., Goudswaard, A., Meulemans, W., & Ballafkih, H. (2020). Het
bevorderen van leren in systeeminnovatie: Bouwstenen voor een lerende innovatie com-
munity. House of Skills. https://hos.srv02.ehero.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Het-
bevorderen-van-leren-in-systeeminnovatie.pdf
28 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)

Villani, E., Greco, L., & Phillips, N. (2017). Understanding value creation in public-private
partnerships: A comparative case study. Journal of Management Studies,54(6), 876–905.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12270
Wagstaff, M. F., Gore, E., Laffranchini, G., Garc´
ıa, M. L., & Ruiz, M. (2022). Perceptions of
transfer of training: Interaction of a continuous learning culture with network diversity,
network strength, and network size. Human Resource Development International,25(5),
578–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2060166
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization,7(2),
225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002
World Economic Forum. (2023). The future of jobs report 2023. Cologny/Geneva, Switzerland:
World Economic Forum.
Xie, X., Fang, L., & Zeng, S. (2016). Collaborative innovation network and knowledge transfer
performance: A fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research,69(11), 5210–5215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.114
Yorks, L., Marsick, V. J., Kasl, E., & Dechant, K. (2003). Contextualizing team learning:
Implications for research and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources,5(1),
103–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302239185
Yu, W., Chavez, R., Jacobs, M. A., & Feng, M. (2018). Data-driven supply chain capabilities and
performance: A resource-based view. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review,114 , 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2017.04.002
Author Biographies
Dr. Tijmen M. Schipper is associate professor lifelong learning and development at
Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in Zwolle, the Netherlands. His research
focuses on learning and development at the individual, organizational and inter-
organizational level. He is particularly interested in how learning takes place in public-
private Learning Communities.
Dr. Kars Mennens is assistant professor at the department of Marketing and Supply
Chain Management at Maastricht University, the Netherlands. His research focuses on
a variety of service innovation related topics, such as how to stimulate and organize it,
and its effects on consumers and employees.
Dr. Paul Preenen is senior researcher at TNO, department of Sustainable Productivity
and Employability, and Professor of Applied Sciences in Human Capital at Saxion
University of Applied Sciences, both in the Netherlands. His research focuses on
organizational behavior, and consequences of technology for organizations, man-
agement and employees.
Dr. Menno Vos is professor of lifelong learning and development at Windesheim
University of Applied Science in Zwolle, the Netherlands. His research focuses on how
Schipper et al. 29

labor market shifts and technological innovations impact required skills of (future)
employees and what this means for workplace learning.
Dr. Marieke van den Tooren is a researcher at TNO, department of Sustainable
Productivity & Employability, in the Netherlands. At TNO, Marieke works on various
research topics, such as the ‘future of work’and ‘inclusive work’. In addition, she takes
up a role as researcher and project manager in large projects in, among others, the
logistics sector.
Dr. Nienke Hofstra is a researcher and lecturer in Logistics at the HAN University of
Applied Sciences and KennisDC Logistiek. Nienke’s main research focus is on de-
cision-making behavior in operations. She also works as program coordinator Human
Capital in Logistics at the same university.
30 Human Resource Development Review 0(0)