Replying to LO28554 --
Dear D P,
You wrote:
> Developing on Judy's contribution, I think, we always need to compare one
> improvement with another, because improvements are, typically, not free.
> They cost.
Do you mean that we need to priorise improvements by taking "prices" into
account? I can agree with you on this point, but I suggest that such an
attitude is not practical (= not easily (if at all) impementable).
> An improvement for me can be a disaster for my neighbour.
> Besides, improvements require effort that can be spent otherwise (e.g., in
> other improvements).
It could be of some help to realise that matters of "cost" are
speculative, and rarely predictable. Moreover, the value of the
improvement is actually defined by the price one is ready to pay (what is
for YOU the price of protecting your neighbours wellbeing).
What i'm trying to articulate here is that reality - that which is
feedbacking our actions - is defined by the prices we're actually ready to
pay - free market.
> Therefore, to discuss improvement in an intelligible way, and to introduce
> a notion of comparison, we may use a distinction between Local Improvement
> and Global Improvement. Whereas the former relates to a specific context
> of action, the latter aspires to escape the context and enable
> improvements to be replicated in multiple contexts.
I can't remember now (aging :-) where did i put my (money) vote. The group
("we") voted equally for both clusters - thus there's no resolution yet.
You seem to articulate in benefit of the Global improvement. Would you
like us to make a second vote?
> In fact, this distinction conveys one of the key ideas in what is called
> 'action research', which aims to produce improvements (in some specific
> contexts) as well as some knowledge (of how to bring about similar
> improvements elsewhere, or how to bring about further improvements in the
> same context, or how to extend the improvement just achieved, etc.).
> Therefore, knowledge in this sense is a tool for achieving global
> improvements.
Absolutely right if you have controlled-improvement in mind (or read
"Improvement of Control" among the clusters :-).
We could suggest "Developing Individuals" to gain the highest score if we
believed that any improvement in system bears an upper-limit (glass
ceelining) imposed by the development of the system's influential
individuals.
You see, the question remains still open.
Kind regards,
Judy
--Judy Tal <judyt@netvision.net.il>
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.