Well, the learning curve theory wasn't of no interest at any rate. A
little heat has been generated and I'm taken by suprise - a
delightful experience.
I think that we need to learn to separate what has been done to
original thinking and good ideas before we throw them out. I
promised to resurrect Frederick Taylor and, while I expect to get to
it someday on this list, I'm happy to resurrect the learning curve
before I get to Taylor. (Hands up if you now know that I'm a
reactionary who loves linearity and control.)
Learning curve theory recognises that learning pays. I'm not
suprised that it's hard for many to satisfy others that learning pays
when they don't accept the learning curve theory. (It's not that
there is a one-for-one correlation - just that there is some
correlation.)
So let's begin by separating the theory from its historical
development and use.
> The learning curve was first articulated by Frank Andress in HBR in Jan
> 1954. He held that the phrase described a process whereby 'manufacturing
> productivity is improved by improving the rate at which standardised tasks
> are carried out on a production line through the application of
> accumulated experience'.
What's wrong with this statement? Nothing, I suggest, for its time
and the condition that it was addressing. Yes, it's far too narrow
an interpretation and applied only to the author's interests. But
that hardly is a reason to restrict it accordingly.
Is there something invalid about accumulated experience? Should we
be against it? Again, it's too small an interpretation and many who
talk about learning curve theory fall into it. Namely, that learning
and experience are equivalent. (Many who are against the learning
curve and for learning organisations do make this terribly limiting
mistake.)
> The curse of this concept is with us yet. This paradigm is fundamentally
> anti-innovatory. If we seek improved productivity by doing the same thing
> better and better, then it follows that any change in technology or
> product represents entry into a new learning curve, and therefore new
> costs.
The concept is _not_ anti-innovatory. The "logic" of if-then used
does not follow and demands many leaps of misinterpretation and other
fallacies. For instance, it does not follow that seeking to improve
"doing the same thing" implies anything about also seeking new ways.
While it does follow that "any change in technology represents entry
into a new learning curve" that only suggests an opening for
continual innovation and continually new learning curves. This
sounds ideal from a business perspective and implies nothing limiting
about human creativity, intelligence or initiative.
>In terms of jobs it was a mixed blessing, because although it
> implied the pursuit of secure jobs and low turnover, it also implied
> deskilling and monotony. Above all the imulse was to change as little as
> possible
Learning curve theory implies none of the things indicated. How can
we reconcile the idea of increasing rates of learning with "as little
change as possible"? What _did_ happen to learning curve theory was
that it was employed by organisations who were trapped in mechanistic
and reductionist models (and many of the theorists were trapped in
the same model and thus reduced the possibility) and, like anything
within such a model when applied to human beings results in many
pathologies.
The point here is not to reject the theory because of the
applications to which a sick system put it.
> So the learning curve paradigm is the antithesis of the learning
> organisation/ systems paradigm.
What is the antithesis of the learning organisation paradigm is the
mechanistic organisation - not the learning curve theory. I also
find that most "systems paradigm" fall into the same traps. Most
systems theorists and most systems theory applications - including
those clothed in learning organisation terms - appear to me to be
bound by mechanistic reductionist thinking and get worse as they are
applied inside of mechanistic reductionist approaches to
organisation.
> How fast one can react to
> changing circumstances becomes more important than holding down unit
> costs.
Ways of speaking matter. Learning curve theory is not about "holding
costs down". That is more of the current bullshit of corporate
speak. It isn't about "cost cutting" either. It's about continually
finding ways to do things better and that comes out as more cheaply
or as using less energy or input.
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk