Doug Simpson has some interesting remarks : (partial quote)
"...This tension between BPR and LO is one of the threads I want to
explore. I agree that BPR and LO are at opposite ends of the
structured-unstructured spectrum. However, I do not agree that this
means they cannot or should not be linked."
IT/LO versus IT/BPR. As an IT professional, it is clear to me that
enlightened organizations are now practicing IT and BPR as a single
discipline. As practice fields mature, IT and LO may similarly
merge.
Maybe the next step is to say that we should not be designing at all.
If LO is "the born" and BPR is "the made", how will we fuse them?
Imagine that our LO practice field games are refined and embellished
and become BPR models and finally enterprise software. "
Could it be a language dilemma to express certain concepts :
e.g. "LO" "IT" "BPR" and using different metaphors to describe,
e.g. "the born" "the made" "structured-unstructured spectrum" etc.
It appears that each "languaged concept" as above is separate
part / entity / domain / compartment / fragment.....
But one of the essence / discipline of LO is "SYSTEM THINKING"
which deals with interrelationship, inter-depedency, inter-reaction
of all these parts plus many more.
What is the views of LO List members?
Regards
Andrew Wong
Organisation Observer and Thinker
Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5621
--andreww@petronas.com.my (Andrew Wong Hee Sing)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>