Dave wrote about using a simple mental model while recognizing that it
can be more detailed:
>To put it another (more complex) way, if a simple understanding
>of something suits my purposes, then I don't need to analyze it
>thoroughly; that only distracts me and creates confusion. But I
>should always be aware that my understanding is limited by my
>circumstances, maintaining a curiosity about what lies beneath
>the surface. When a situation arises that calls for a more
>complete understanding, I'm ready for further learning. In a way,
>this is deliberate ignorance. I find it useful because my
>particular thinking patterns involve focusing intently on a
>narrowly-defined subject (low "band-width"), with the rest of the
>universe off-topic at that moment. It's a way of giving myself
>permission to have a tight focus while respecting the validity of
>the larger context. It's also a way of reining in my intuition,
>which tends to see things all at once in neat packages.
This kind of thinking makes sense as a way to cope with complexity but
not lose it. In fact, this might be extended as a key part of an
effective LO in a complex environment. The concept that comes to mind
is "hierarchy". This is not just an outline, but a rich hierarchy
that can contain things like maps and mental models. A hierarchy
allows one to have a high-level view, or drill down into more detail
in a selected area without getting lost. In a creative sense, a new
concept can be fleshed out as detail is added. If, as Dave suggests,
we want to remind ourselves that there is more, some nodes can be
labeled "everything else" or "to be explored".
We can all relate to the difference between using an Internet search
engine and using a site like Yahoo to find something. Yahoo is
popular because it offers a useful hierarchy of information that is
efficient for some purposes. If you want to find newspapers in
Brazil, you can drill right down to the list more effectively in the
Yahoo hierarchy than using a search engine.
It is harder to find common examples about rich hierarchies, partly
because they are rarely found. Rich hierarchies allow more than one
hierarchy to intersect. They would allow more than one way to
organize the same material to avoid excessive influence of the
structure on the way we think.
For example, a purchase of an item in a store is an intersection of a
store hierarchy with a product item hierarchy, a customer hierarchy, a
time hierarchy and perhaps more. A company such as Microstrategy
(strategy.com) has created a very hierarchy-driven interface for
exploring data warehouses. It supports the type of thinking that
appeals to Dave.
As another example, Ken Wilbur, in the book "Sex, Ecology and
Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution", decided that hierarchy was a
fundamental concept and devotes the early chapters to this theme. The
term "holon" has been coined to mean an item in a hierarchy that is a
"whole system" at some level. Holons at higher levels are composed of
lower-level holons. Wilbur is trying to improve on what he calls
"flatland holism". Change of a holon will disrupt or destroy all
higher-level holons and, in terms of At de Lange, cause "entropy
production".
Dave's interesting questions lead in this direction, which I would
suggest is an important methodology for LO and KM to explore. As we
go from individual thinking to teams and larger organizations, the
need for formal methodologies to share insights becomes urgent. I am
personally working on a team process and SD software that will include
some of these concepts. Particularly tough and yet important is to
have a structure that will allow for creativity and changes in
paradigm that can keep up with the speed of thinking and learning. We
hope to be ready to test this offering in a few months.
In the joy of seeking,
Kent Quisel kent@de-sa.com
Decision Support Associates (DeSA)
--"Kent Quisel" <kent@de-sa.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>