Replying to LO29896 --
Continuing the dialogue:
Mark asks:
>>>The underlying theory of practice is, by definition, incomplete.
>>And will remain so, until it's no longer useful. (Which doesn't imply
>>that it's not a good idea to have a theory -- just be sure to keep it
>>watered and fed with nutrients from experience. Once it stops growing, it
>>won't be good for much. For even better results, plant it near other
>>theories so they can cross-fertilize and give birth to vigorous hybrids.)
> Come on Don, what theory? I'm asking what it is, not whether
> it needs watering or is permanent. It's not incomplete, it's
> missing. Water what?
> What is it?
"It" is any theory -- yours, mine, Senge's, whichever -- that purports to
explain the operation of an LO, and implies which actions will help the LO
and which will hurt it. I don't believe that there's one all-singing,
all-dancing, all-valid theory applicable to all LOs (let alone OOs
struggling to become LOs).
As At describes "at length", there's a complex relationship among
practices, essences, and theories, and these relationships need to be
respected.
Mark again:
>> It may be useful to know what Peter had in mind (perhaps Rick can lure him
>> here to tell us!), but neither necessary nor sufficient for each of us to
>> determine how much and which parts, if any, of his approach to adopt.
>> That responsibility lies with us, unless we simply want to be accolytes
>> and accept the Received Word.
> It may not be necessary or sufficient, as you say, but it certainly is
> reasonable and prudent. That is precisely how I suggest we avoid falling
> prey to the 'Received Word' logic of truth. All I ask is that we have a
> theory of how the system of interest to us purportedly works. Then I can
> judge the potential suitability of the proposed means of improving its
> performance. This is not too much to ask, I think. It may there, I just
> don't see it. Do you? If so, what is it? Tell us.
You ask that "we" have "a" theory for the "the system of interest to us";
I think this is a very reasonable thing to ask for. Like you, though, I
don't have one ready-made; I've had some theories about the operation of
organizations I've been part of, but I wouldn't try to apply them "as is"
outside those organizations at the times I was in them.
My feeling is that "we", working in a given context in or on a system of
interest, have to come up with "our" theories (note the plural) to cover
various aspects or parts of the system. As I think I said earlier, there
may be several useful theories of this system, all of which are consistent
with Senge's 5Ds and 11 essences. If they conflict among themselves,
we'll have to resolve them (the nurturing I spoke of).
It would no doubt be useful to capture descriptions of successful theories
of this kind, carefully put in the context of descriptions of the kind of
system they were applied to, and their "realms of applicability". A
library of such theories could be useful for a new individual or group
trying to create appropriate theories for the system he/she/they are
dealing with. (Note here At's information/knowledge distinction -- the
"living theory" is knowledge, individual and/or shared; the "theory
description" is information which must be digested "in context" to create
the living theory.)
By the way, I think this kind of activity, in a more tacit form, goes on
all the time in reasonably complex organizations. I'll finish with the
abstract of a paper called "Analyzing due process in the workplace", by
Elihu M. Gerson and Susan Leigh Star, published in "ACM Transactions on
Information Systems (TOIS)", Volume 4 , Issue 3 (July 1986). (I think I
still have a copy of that issue of TOIS; if not, someone who's an ACM
member can get the PDF from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=214431&coll=portal&dl=ACM )
Abstract:
Every office is an open system, and the products of office work are the
result of decentralized negotiations. Changing patterns of task
organization and alliance inevitably give rise to inconsistent knowledge
bases and procedures. This implies that there are no globally correct
answers to problems addressed by OISs. Rather, systems must deal with
multiple competing, possibly irreconcilable, solutions. Articulating
alternative solutions is the problem of due process. This problem and its
consequences are illustrated by a case study of a rate-setting group in a
large health insurance firm. There is no formal solution to the problem
of due process. But it must be solved in practice if distributed
intelligent OISs are to be developed. We propose an alternative approach
based on the work of social scientists concerned with analyzing analogous
problems in human organization. Solution of the due process problem
hinges on developing local closures to the problem faced by an
organization. This means analyzing (a) local, tacit knowledge and its
transfer ability; (b) articulation work, that is, reconciling
incommensurate assumptions and procedures.
--Don Dwiggins d.l.dwiggins@computer.org "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploration will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." -- T.S.Elliot
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.