Replying to Fred Nickols LO16216
Thanks for your feedback -- I appreciate your insightful observations --
and I agree that the S-R Model leaves much to be desired in studying
learning, especially learning involving complex systems. As for your
suggestion to go back and redefine learning -- I have, but I won't state
my personal definition here because it would just get in the way.
Here's a slightly different slant on approaching the question, "Can
organizations learn?" -- It involves the use of time. I don't know where
I got this technique. It's not mine, but it is very useful. Basically
you ask yourself the question, "When?" It works with just about any type
of question, and I think it is very instructive in getting at some of the
fundamental underlying issues surrounding complex questions.
The analysis is conducted in several steps or questions: What would your
response have been in the past? What is it now? What do you think it
will be in the future? If your answers were different, Why?
When I apply the above technique to the question, "Can organizations
learn?", I get three different answers. In the past, my answer is a
definite, NO! -- if you go back to the pre-computer age. The dominant
model (paradigm) was the all-knowing manager who learned what needed
learning, used this knowledge to formulate plans, decisions, etc., and
then communicated (one way) the instructions required by the masses to do
their jobs. Only a handful of managers did any learning; and the great
majority were expected to park their brains at the door. So as far as the
organization was concerned, there was precious little individual learning
going on, much less anything that could be called, organizational
learning. What little knowledge that was being garnered by the few
managers/leaders, was stored in files that were personal, private, and
isolated. Organizational knowledge resided with (in) and
usually/literally left with individual managers.
As for the present situation, the answer to the question, "Can
organizations learn?'", has to be for me an inquisitive and shaky --
probably. The situation began to evolve with the advent of computer
technology. Slowly at first through the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and then with
increasing speed up to the blazingly fast changes of the current
environment, computers and their connecting networks, have transformed the
present organization in a very dramatic and fundamental way. Networked
computer systems are beginning to form a crude analog to the
neuro-networks of living organisms.
I really like what Jan Lelie had to say:
> Because, what really is
>happening, through this nice WWW (world wide web), is that thoughts (like
>these lines) are created, stored, retrieved, editted, commented, stored
>again, recreated, associated, re-edditted, misspeled, re-imagined,
>interpreted, compared, refined, expanded, interlinked, webbed, related,
>communicated, patterned, forgotten, re-searched, misused, believed,
>laughed at, identified, guided, categorized, manipulated, skipped,
>misunderstood, fixed, triggered, responding, corelated (where did i read
>this before) like in my brain. We are like individual neurons, firing when
>triggered, as a certain treshold has been exceeded. When we are "moved to
>speak", we speak. When we are silent, we're not at rest, we remain at
>certain "potential", ready to act.
Capabilities like memory, searching, sorting, recalling -- all are taking
place in the realm of the silicon chip and electrical impulses instead of
and in addition to the realm of the neuron and electro-chemical synaptic
impulses of living beings. Some of the more advanced systems are even
beginning to do a little exploring -- gathering new data and combining it
with existing data to create the alternatives for future actions.
However, what is still missing is the overall goal-setting,
direction-setting, action-taking actor for the system. Computer
networks/system may simulate learning, but they essentially go only to the
limits of their programming -- and that of course leads to the programmer
-- i.e., we're back to the people again. It is the people in the
organization that decide what information and knowledge to go after. It
is the people who interact with the databases and each other to create new
connections and combinations that can be recognized as new knowledge
(product, idea, insight, etc.) that did not exist before. And even though
this new knowledge feeds back into the organizational network and thus
becomes part of the organization, separate from the individuals that
created it, it will just sit in memory until a human being uses it in the
next iteration of knowledge building.
The answer in the future to the question, "Can organizations learn?", will
almost certainly be a resounding, YES! Artificial Intelligence (AI)
systems, will be a fact in the not too distant future -- and by their very
nature, they will be learning systems. I believe that AI systems will be
as ubiquitous, and as commonly accepted in the future, as desktop
computers are today. AI systems will be integrated everywhere -- they
will form the very fabric of our organizations. As this transformation
takes place (and we are in the early stages already), the question, "Can
organizations learn?", will become a moot point. Humans will work
effortlessly and seamlessly with and within silicon- based, intelligent
systems. Individual and organizational learning will become
complementary, and in many respects, inseparable and indistinguishable.
There you have it. Three different answers to the same question: NO,
PROBABLY, YES. It is clear that I believe computer technology plays a key
role in my understanding of organizational learning. Is the computer a
requirement? -- NO! But it has greatly accelerated and magnified the key
fundamentals. The real issue is "dynamic connectivity" -- and networked
computers are all about connectivity.
I said I won't give my definition of learning, and I won't. But I do
believe it has everything to do with making connections. Information
flows in (by design or chance) and connections are made which may result
in new knowledge being generated. This is a highly dynamic process, and
like all dynamic systems, the number of connections and the speed at which
the connections are made is critical to the robustness of the system. The
old organizational model, with limited access to information; few people
actively engaged in the act of making connections; and private, isolated,
personal knowledge hordes; was not a system conducive to the process of
learning. Add to this the fact that information (with the possibility for
useful connections) moved at glacial speeds, and it is clear to me that NO
was the proper response for the past. However, with the changes being
wrought by networked computer systems, I believe that connectivety and the
dynamics of the organization are changing in fundamental, qualitative (not
quantitative) ways that are leading to real "learning organizations." The
future will be an interesting place.
Best regards,
--Doug Jones <djones@asheville.cc.nc.us>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>