Replying to LO27969 --
Dear Organlearners,
John Zavacki <systhinc@msn.com> writes:
>I am responding to the following segments of one
>of At's avuncular missives:
Greetings dear John,
I had to look up what avancular means to make sure that you are not
perhaps calling me names ;-)
>My dear Don Quixote, I understand the your sadness
>at seeing no references to creativity or authentic
>learning in the standards.
The sadness is even worse when thinking of the standards in examinations
at a university leaving no place for creativity or authentic learning.
>I abhor the language of the standards and their
>minimalist approach to systems thinking, but they
>serve their purpose, which is to ensure the safety
>of the consumer, whether financial or in health.
I think somehat differently. Standards involve mainly two of the 7Es
(seven essentialities of creativity). They are spareness
("quantity-limit") and otherness ("quality-variety"). That is why they
serve a purpose in systems thinking. But when one or more of the other
five 7Es get neglected in favour for these two, then creativity and
authentic learning begin to hit the dust.
I am sorry Elixabete for bringing the 7Es into the dialogue well knowing
that you have little, if any, opportunity to contemplate them.
I do not have enough experience how it goes in other countries. But here
in South Africa our labour unions tend to go over board because of the
politics of the past and thus the historical disadvantages of workers.
Thus these standards are often used to combat a labour union rather than
for business to flourish
>Leadership and love breed creativity. I must have
>processes which meet 6 sigma capability in order to
>ensure on time delivery of parts that work to my
>customer and this means a repeatble, not creative
>process. But to make the next generation faster,
>easier to use, more precise, I must go outside of
>the standards and inside of the community of practice
>and brain storm laughingly and lovingly.
Very wise words. Thank you very much. I will make a copy of your reply and
give it to my daughter.
I personally think that much of the problematic of the ISO9000 standards
has to do with liveness ("becoming-being") and otherness
("quality-variety"). To produce a consistent product, "becoming" is needed
with as little "variety" in it as possible. To develop a new product,
"becoming" is also needed, but now with as much "variety" as possible to
see what all the possibilities are. But when an uncreative manager begins
to slam the breaks on the "variety" of the "becoming" of a possible new
product, that manager has no clue of what improvement means.
It is impossible to make a production line out of RD (Research and
Development) and still have good RD. I would even dare to say conversely
that once a recipe for RD has been found, it is not good RD any more. This
makes my mind to wonder once again to the research going on at
universities. To produce a lot of papers which peers can referee, some
recipe is needed.
A recipe causes uniform becoming. Creativity and authentic learning is
seldom, if ever, a uniform becoming. A study of great artists and great
scientists will reveal it. Sadly, in my 17 years of training at school and
university, I was never asked to study even one great artist and one great
scientist and even to compare them. I wonder how much it is done in
universities?
It reminds me of someone (I cannot remember whom) who once wrote something
to the effect that the real advancements in science or art are made by
those who know the history of science or art as well as the biographies of
those who contributed to past advancements. Neither the history nor these
biographies will show any uniform becoming.
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.