Learning Lab Denmark (LLD), a research and development institute, encountered many of the difficulties typically experienced by start-ups, especially obstacles that involve developing a set of routines for getting things done. In other respects, LLD faced several distinct challenges that are specific to its charter.

1. ORGANIZING FROM SCRATCH
THE LEARNING LAB DENMARK EXPERIENCE
Team Members:
Akash Rangari
Ashutosh Puri
Hridayjyoti Thakuria
Ravi

2. INCEPTION AND BACKGROUND:
 1998: Inspiration for Learning Lab Denmark came from a group of
Danish businessmen and government officials
 They believe Denmark should have R&D institute that could develop,
compile and test the most advanced knowledge.
 Development of knowledge economy and IT revolution of late 1990’s
driving force behind LLDs inception.
 LLD intended to bridge gap between theory and practice.
 February 1999 : Danish Ministry of Business and Industry, the Ministry
of Research and the Ministry media of Education convened working
group of researchers and representatives to visit MIT’s Media Lab and
Centre for Innovative Learning and Technology.

3. Proposal drawn after discussion with LLD’s stakeholders.
Stakeholders were the Government, Corporation and
Educational Institutions.
 2001 : LLD formally established by the Danish government

4.  Marianne Stang Vaaland :
• Managing Director of LLD.
• In her late 20’s.
• Prior experience as consultant.
• Young and energetic.
• Fresh ideas about design and leadership.
 Hans Siggaard Jensen :
• Research Director of LLD.
• Well known in academic circles.
• Prior involvement in many projects.
• Reputation for being unconventional.
• Enjoyed building an organization
Main Protagonists

5. Overall aspirations of LLD described in the “ Strategy 2002 “ document :
To do cutting edge research in areas of learning, knowledge creation
and competence development.
 To work experimentally, cross-disciplinary and internationally.
 To develop new theory on learning, as well as fresh concepts and
practical tools.
Strategy 2002

6. LLD – DPU INTERFACE
 LLD though an independent organization, but was affiliated to the
Danish Pedagogical University (DPU).
 LLD used the infrastructure provided by DPU.
 DPU to administer LLDs finances charging a set rate of 16.8% for
overhead on all revenues that LLD received.
 DPU a conventional university

7. LLD’S VISION AND IDENTITY
 VISION : To be at the forefront of research, organization and
communication in both the national and international context.
 Emphasis on Learning Lab Denmark style of research.
 Ambition and goal to put communication at the centre of everything.
 To closely integrate theory and practice, with a focus on “action
research” in method.
 To build bridges across different sectors and to see the different
participating parties more as equal partners in a development process
than as mere research objects.

8. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
TRADITIONAL AND LLD MODEL
TRADITIONAL MODEL
LLD MODEL
RESEARCHER AS
THINKER
COMMUNICATION
TEAM AS
TRANSLATORS
STAKEHOLDERS AS
AUDIENCE
RESEARCHER AS
COMMUNICATOR AND
COMMUNICATOR AS COACH
STAKEHOLDERS AS
INVOLVED IN RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT

9. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE OF LLD

10. THE SECRETARIAT
 The Secretariat was the central unit of LLD.
 Oversee organization’s daily operations.
 Recruitment of employees and integrating LLD’s external partners.
 Repository of all information created within LLD.
 Service- oriented, flexible, non-bureaucratic and professional
 Provide a “ Hilton Experience” i.e. sustain the research side with a
supportive attitude where helpful procedures make it easier not
harder for the researcher to do their job.

11. THE CONSORTIA
Consortia Directors ( CD ) :
• Pivotal to the success of their respective consortia.
• To keep relevant stakeholders informed of new developments.
• To establish ties with individuals and organizations outside LLD to
discover new, interesting ideas.
 Brokers:
• Circulate knowledge among consortia and bring knowledge from
consortia to secretariat.
• Perform support tasks .
• Enact directives on secretariat’s behalf.
Employees:
• Young and energetic.
• Educated in top Danish universities.
• Desire to create something new and significant quickly.

12.  External Problems:
• Year 2000 IT bubble burst leading to widespread recession. This in turn
lowered investor confidence leading to private sector funding being reduced.
• The 9/11 terrorist attacks creates a pessimistic atmosphere leading to loss of
funds.
 Internal Problemss :
• Large gap between aspirations and outcomes.
• Major learning curve faced by employees in both secretariat and consortia
• Ambiguous aspirations led to lack of common footing among consortia and
secretariat.
• Lack of common culture.
• Broad, socially acceptable portfolio of aspirations became a liability.
• Lack of common culture.
• Senior management reluctant to back all SOPs to avoid being bureaucratic.
• Brokers wanted standardization and stability whereas CD’s advocated
variability.
• Strain in relationship between LLD and DPU.
PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES FACED BY LLD

13. External Problems:
• Year 2000 IT bubble burst leading to widespread recession. This in turn lowered
investor confidence leading to private sector funding being reduced.
• The 9/11 terrorist attacks creates a pessimistic atmosphere leading to loss of funds.

14. Internal Problems :
Broad, socially acceptable portfolio of aspirations became a liability.

15. Large gap between aspirations and outcomes./ Lack of clarity of objectives

16. Lack of common culture:
Top managers create the climate for the enterprise. Their values influence the
direction of the firm.

17. Major learning curve faced by employees in both secretariat and consortia.

18. • Strain in relationship between LLD and DPU.

19. Senior management reluctant to back all SOPs to avoid being bureaucratic.

20. Brokers wanted standardization and stability whereas CD’s advocated variability.
Brokers
CD’s