Replying to LO28028 --
It appears to me there are three drawbacks to LOs, and they are easily
described, but not easily resolved.
1 - LOs are not automatically ethical, legal, environmentally
responsible, or even relevant. LOs by themselves lack values. LOs by
themselves may easily lack direction or focus, or they may change focus
too easily.
2 - LOs by definition rely on learning and collaboration. Brilliant
flashes from aberrant individuals are not automatically going to survive
and thrive even if they are right. So, for example, within the theory of
complexity science is embedded the notion of fitness peaks. The best,
fastest, most effective way to find a new fitness peak may be to monitor,
evaluate, and implement the ideas of brilliant rogue individuals rather
than rely on development of a learning organization.
3 - System dynamics models are so dependent on initial conditions that
for real life situations they are essentially unworkable. These models
are somewhat interesting as aids to development of mental models, but they
have severe limitations if they are used in a numerical or computational
mode. Furthermore, because of their lack of solution in a numerical mode,
one is left with a very unsatisfying sense of their overall value in a
"mental model" mode. If, at the end of the analysis, the model says that
initial conditions that cannot even be measured are the dominant drivers,
then one must question the value of the mental model.
Those are the three that I believe must dominate any list.
Rol
--"Rol Fessenden" <rol@fessenden.net>
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.