On Wednesday the 27th, replying to Brian Gordon in LO 22961, Fred wrote,
>Because I think we tend to queue up the best solution we can muster and if
>we botch it at implementation time the next one will be of lesser quality.
>Said a little differently, I find it hard to imagine that the outcome of a
>botched implementation would be reflection articulated as follows: "Gee,
>folks, we muffed that one. Well, let's go back to the drawing boards and
>create an even better solution which we will not muff this time."
Fred, isn't this just what's implied by double-loop learning: to do just
what you suggest is so hard to imagine, and inquire into the system
conditions that prevented our "best solution" from being successful?
Malcolm Burson
mburson@mint.net
--"Malcolm Burson" <mburson@mint.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>