Replying to LO24946 --
Dear Organlearners,
Mark McElroy <mmcelroy@vermontel.net> writes:
>The question I've asked myself recently is "why would speed
>of learning translate into a sustainable advantage?" Speed,
>by itself, does not confer sustainability. Clearly the ability to
>learn faster than one's competitors carries advantage in the
>marketplace, but where does the "sustainable" ability to do so
>come from? There's nothing in De Geus's words that would
>answer that question. So I decided to tackle that issue myself.
Greetings Mark,
I really like this problem which you have pointed to. Its solution is a
test to the Systems Thinking which we make use of.
The "sustainability" which you refer to, may explained in terms of the
concept "free energy F" (one thing). The "free energy F " is a part of the
"total energy E" of a system. The "free energy F" of a system is that
energy with which the system can change its future organisation (as chaos
and order). The present organisation of the system makes the rest of its
"total energy E " unavailable. The present organisation is measured by its
entropy S. To change the organisation, additional entropy has to be
produced. Only the "free energy F" can be used to do this. It produces
entropy by means of the entropy force-flux pairs. As a result of the
entropy production, conversions between the various forms of energy
happen.
The system can sustain a change in its organisation when it has "free
energy F" to do so. By sustaining the change, the "free energy F" has to
decrease, i.e. has to be used up. In other words, the system should have
"free energy F" available to sustain any change. When the system's "free
energy F" cannot decrease any further, the system cannot sustain its
changes in organisation, even learning, any more.
Learning is nothing else than a change in the organisation of knowledge.
To sustain a person's learning, that person has to have "free energy F" to
do so. Once the person's "free energy F" for learning has become too low,
the person cannot learn any more, i.e. sustain his/her learning. To
sustain learning indefinitely, the person has to find ways to replenish
the "free energy F" used up for learning, ie. used up to change the
organisation of knowledge. This means that in the second loop of
double-loop learning, the person has to learn how to sustain the first
loop of learning by replenishing the "free energy F" needed to do so.
I will not go into how to replenish the "free energy F" since I have done
that in many previous contributions.
>If I had to re-state the same thought in my own words, I'd say:
>"The ability to sustainability learn faster than your competitors
>may be the ultimate competitive advantage." This places the
>emphasis not so much on speed, but on the sustainability of
>a certain rate of learning. In other words, I suspect that any
>organization could ramp up its rate of learning on a deliberate
>willful basis for some temporary period of time, but to
>institutionalize that higher rate of learning such that it is
>sustained over long periods of time is quite another matter.
>The challenge, then, is how to achieve higher rates -- or "more
>competitively advantageous" rates -- of sustainable innovation.
>Call me a nut, but I see this as the Holy Grail in business and
>organizational performance. It's the sustainability of innovation
>that matters more so than speed of it!
The speed by which any change in organisation of any system happens, is in
a curious way related to with the "free energy F" available for that
change. To articulate its relation, we can make use of the qualifications
"first order" and "second order". Then we can say that the
"sustainability" of a change is determined by the "first order" change in
"free energy F" while the "speed" of change is determined by a "second
order" change in "free energy F". It means that the "faster" or "slower"
the "change in free energy F", the "faster" or "slower" is the rate of
change. Here the "faster or slower" is something of a second order while
the "change" is of first order. Please, never assume that the relationship
between the "change" and the "change of change" is linear. It is actually
impossible to have a linear relationship.
I cannot help it, but the mathematical faculty in me begs that
the difference between "sustainability" and "speed" can be
expressed much "clearer" by way of symbols. Let F be the
"free energy", let /_\ symbolise "change" and let /_\ /_\ symbolise
"change of change". Let <==> means "corresponds".Then:
sustainability <==> /_\F
speed <==> /_\ /_\F
The change is "sustainable" when F decreases, i,e /_\F < 0. The
change has "speed" means /_\ /_\F > 0. The slower or faster the
speed, the closer to or further away is /_\ /_\F from zero. A telling
way to picture the relationship between /_\F < 0 and /_\ /_\F > 0
is by means of a graph. Let in the following graphs the vertical
axis represent "fee energy F" and the horizonthal axis represent
the "time t".
The following graph is one of "sustainability" and of "attainable
speed" -- /_\F < 0 and /_\ /_\F > 0
|
|_______________________________________
|x
| x
| x
| x
| x
| x
The following graph is one of "sustainability" and of "non-attainable
speed" -- /_\F < 0 and /_\ /_\F < 0
|
|_______________________________________
|x
| x
| x
| x
| x
| x
The following graph is one of "non-sustainability", but of "attainable
speed" -- /_\F > 0 and /_\ /_\F > 0
| x
| x
| x
| x
| x
|x______________________________________
|
|
The following graph is one of "non-sustainability" and of
"non-attainable
speed" -- /_\F > 0 and /_\ /_\F < 0
| x
| x
| x
| x
| x
|x______________________________________
|
|
The first graph above point to a "healthy" organisation because it change
is sustainable (/_\F < 0 ) and its speed is "attainable". In the case of
learning it designates authentic learning. The last three graphs are all
possible, but point to "unhealthy" changes in organisation because the
changes are "non-sustainable" or the speeds are "non-atainable".
Here is a graph for two "organised systems" x and y which each sustain
their changes (/_\F < 0) with the same amount, but of which the speed of x
is much faster than the speed of y
Graph of /_\F < 0 and /_\ /_\F > 0 -- x faster than y
|
|_______________________________________
|xy
| x y
| x y
| x y
| x y
| x y
The factors which influence the "sustainability" of an organisational
change are in general quite different from the factors which influence the
"speed" of the organisational change. For example, whereas leadership (see
my contribution on Catalysis and Leadership some time ago) plays a
profound role on the "speed" of organisational change, it plays little
role in the sustainability of that change. (Yes, an organisation may
sustain its changes by becoming a LO, but not by appointing a celebrated
leader who care nothing for a LO.) On the order hand, whereas the
environment plays a profound role on the sustainability of organisational
change, it plays little role in the speed of that change.
It may be interesting to compare the speed of two hares -- some may even
bet on it ;-) But it is silly to say that the hare is better (like x in
the last graph above) than the turtle (like y in the same graph above)
because it has a much lower speed. But speed can also be deceptive. The
African python is a slow mover when it is not lying still which happens
most of the time. However, when it is hungry and the temperature is high
so that its metabolism is turbo-charged, it can outrace any animal except
the cheetah. To see a python dash forward over some hundred yards is the
most awesome thing to observe -- a living cruiser missile. Few have seen
it, but those who did see it, will never forget it.
Perhaps the most extraordinary thing which I have discovered
in learning is that some learners may first learn like a turtle,
but after some major inner emergence to a higher complexity,
will then learn like a hare. This may be depicted in the
following graph: (the ^ indicates where the emergence happens)
|
|_______________________________________
|x ^
| x ^
| x ^
| x
| ^x
| ^ x
| ^ x
| ^ x
Observe how after the emergence ^ the free energy decreases
faster than before, yet with still the same shape, although now
seemingly exagerated.
>List members interested in reading more about my own
>thoughts on how to achieve higher rates of sustainable
>innovation are free to download a copy of my latest paper
>entitled, "Managing For Sustainable Innovation" from
>my web site at the following URL:
> http://www.macroinnovation.com/papers.htm
>As always, comments and criticisms are most welcome.
Mark, I have enjoyed it very much. But as I myself see the emergent phase
of innovation, it is the actual kink in the last graph above. There is not
such a thing as CONTINUOUS emergences, although we can expect and should
strive for CONTINUAL emergences (several discrete kinks in the graph).
Without no kink for any learner, all the learners will move at various
speeds through a standard course according to a normal distribution.
However, should there be, for example two kinks, then some learners will
make no kink, others one kink and the rest two kinks. Hence the normal
curve will split up into three normal curves, the one moving at the same
speed (no kink), the other one moving somewhat faster (one kink) and the
third one moving the fastest (two kinks). Consequently we will observe a
chromatographic separation between the learners with no, with one and with
two kinks.
To insist on continuous emergences will effectively be like insisting on
graph 2 in the beginning (/_\F < 0 and /_\ /_\F < 0) rather than graph 1
in the beginning (/_\F < 0 and /_\ /_\F > 0). This usually happens when
people are not aware that "entropy production" has a rhythm which has to
meander between the digestive phase and the emergent phase. Those learners
who adhere to this rhythm best, experience the most kinks in a certain
time. Thus they would be the first to complete a course as a result of the
fastest speed of their normal curve.
The above explanations may seem to be too theoretical even trying to
understand. But I have empirical data of actual practice which had even
been reproduced to sustain the claims which I have made above. However,
this practice involve a level of authentic learning (Personal Mastery and
Team Learning) which requires utmost tenacity in the seven essentialities
and their evolution to keep up with.
One of the most curious observations which I have made, is that the more
the kinks, the more the learner desires cooperation and the less the
learner wants to be drawn into competition. Furthermore, the action of the
seven essentialties is furthermore such that as as the learner reverse
from cooperation and symbiosis to competition and parasitism, the number
of future kinks to emerge quickly becomes less. It entails that as soon as
innovation has to serve competition rather than cooperation, the learner
disables him/her self from the emergent phase of innovation. In this sense
my answer to your "why would speed of learning translate into a
sustainable advantage?" will be "it would induce a disadvanatge rather
than sustaining any advantage". In other words, the more the attempts to
accelerate learning so as to be the winner, the greater the losses will
because of failing to emerge continually.
I want to end this contribution, but there is still one very deep pattern
which I have to comment on. The more complex the organisation of any
system becomes, the more its entropy S becomes as a measure of that
organisation. As a result, and I do hope you will understand the
subtleness of it, the smaller becomes the ratio of its "free energy F" to
its "total enegy E". One way to express this smaller becoming ratio of F
to E as the system becomes complexer, is to think of the system becoming
softer and more fragile. It means that the requirements /_\F < 0 (for
sustainable transformations) and /_\ /_\F < 0 (for attainable speeds) can
more easily be jeopardised.
Mother Earth is the most complex system which we have to take into account
for our own living. It is this very deep pattern which makes Mother Earth
so soft and fragile, despite the earthquakes and hurricanes she can
produce. It is this very deep pattern which is now at stake. We can become
so focussed on the "/_\F < 0 and /_\ /_\F < 0 pattern" of specific
organisations, especially in the corporate world, that we forget to bear
in mind the "whole of all human organisations". The collective action of
all human organisations is now very close to destroying the "/_\F < 0 and
/_\ /_\F < 0 pattern" of Mother Earth itself. There is no doubt in my mind
any more.
What can we do to save Mother Earth, the only home which we have? I would
suggest reading my contribution "On Cells and Learning Organisations" once
again. Time is running out!!!
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.