Replying to LO29888 --
Dear Organlearners,
Vali Odedra <odedra1@cwcom.net> writes:
>to what extent can the learning organisation replace the
>systematic training cycle?
Greetings dear Vali,
I am not sure what you mean with "systematic training cycle". As far as
i understand it, it consists of four main phases:
Identify Training Needs
Plan and Design Training
Deliver Training
Evaluate Training Outcomes
Each phase can be subdivided in sections. For example, in the second
phase objectives have to be formulated, appropiate problems have to be
designated, practical sessions have to be designed, etc. The word "cycle"
means that for each course the four phases have to worked through. In
other words, "systematic training cycle" refers to training in a formal or
setup like in some institution.
The phrase "systematic training" (without the "cycle") refers to training
in which a particular philosophy or systems thinking is followed. This is
usually the case in the humanities. But it may also refer to a subject
which has attained a well developed structure. This is usually the case in
the natural sciences. This "systemtic training" may the incorporate the
four phases of the "cycle" without refering explicitly to them.
I think that the Learning Organisation is something else than "systematic
training" or "systematic training cycle". Whoever (trainers and trainees)
participate in some "systematic training cycle" form an organisation in
which learning takes place. But this learning in the organisation does not
imply a Learning Organisation (two words, one concept). A organisation in
which learning happens become a Learning Organisation when a special,
complex association is formed between all its members. It can be described
by the so called five disciplines:- Personal Mastery, Team Learning,
Shared Vision, Mental Models and Systems Thinking.
Personal Mastery consists of far more than the training in a subject or a
vocation using the "systematic training cycle". For example, members in
the organisation have different personalities and jobs. Each is commited
to develop spontaneously his/her full potential for the job and refine
his/her personality. A variety of means may be used to accomplish this,
among others making use of "systematic training cycles" offered by
training institutions.
I do not think that the Learning Organisation can ever replace the
"systematic training cycle" because they are two so much different things.
For example, the "systematic training cycle" has a temporary character
whereas the Learning Organisation is an on-going phenomenon. However,
those participating in a "systematic training cycle" can work towards
transforming themselves into a Learning Organisation for the duration of
the training. This will make their participation in the "systematic
training cycle" far more rewarding.
On the other hand, the Team Learning in a LO can benefit by incorporating
the phases and elements of "systematic training cycle" in Team Learning
projects. This require that a team should select leaders or initiators to
take care of the various phases of the cycle.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.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.