In LO2233, Bernard writes:
> We whould make a distinction between two kinds of emergent learning.
> Emergent learning of a well known technique (like riding a bicycle) and
> emergent learning of an emergent technique, skill or knowledge.
In LO2270, Micheal McMaster responds with...
>I ask, "Are there no useful distinctions in this rich language of
>ours to have these all be "just learning"? Is emergent learning
>of emergent knowledge referring to inventing, innovating, creating,
>experimenting, recombining, adapting? These distinctions might be
>useful for developing elements that will support their occurrence.
>And learning may then have a set that is specifically tailored to,
>say, "acquiring knowledge that we already know exists". (In the
>catchy phrase, when we know that we don't know.)
I feel that making these distinctions or actually the lack of doing so
has caused much grief with past attempts at improvement such
as TQM, Reengineering, Quality Function Deployment, "Kaizen"
which wasted so much of our time. I taught many people in our
company the Hoshin Kanri process and related it to breakthrough
improvements in processes. Along comes reengineering and it is
supposedly a "new thing" for Dow. Needless to say, many of my
constituents got just a little confused when they saw that REEEE
taught them only a new way to flowchart a process but without an
implementation model. (Hoshin carries an implementation model
with it.)
Here is a true story about the lack of distinctions when inquiring
about the Learning Organization. Two professional course designers
go to a conference. One of the symposia they attend is on
the L.O. They bring this information back to their organization
and pronounce that what they are doing is enabling the Learning
Organization to occur in their company. Their misrepresentation
could be easily understood since some of the English words the
speaker are used in a relationship to CLASSROOM training. Some
examples of how this played out as I sat (somewhat frustrated)
in the room listening to them.
1.) Words: Enhanced knowledge and skills
Interpretation: Train people how to use electronic
technology better for personal learning
Intent - create new knowledge and skills
2.) Words: Team learning
Interpretation: Take training in INTACT WORK GROUPS
Intent: The discipline of "thinking together" and recognizing
patterns of interaction which both facilitate and undermine a
group's ability to learn and create together.
(Thinking together was taken to mean, thinking the SAME.
If we could train all natural work groups together, they would
think along the same lines. YUK!!)
3.) Words: Learning Organization
Interpretation: Stuff more EXISTING knowledge into people's
heads and bodies.
Intent: YOU ON THIS DIGEST PUT YOUR OWN WORDS HERE
4.) Words: Create the future
Interpretation: Add many more creativity tools to our training
Intent: See Senge's words
So, I'm supporting the idea of making distinctions on words which
are critical in order to create some minimal level of shared
understanding.
It has taken me three years to overcome the above misrepresentations
of what SENGE was interpreted as meaning by the speaker at the
symposium. (Don't you just love third party representations.)
I finally got some of my friends past this point when I used Hoshin
Kanri (participative planning for breakthrough), which some people
IMHO use and understand quite well. Don't know if it helps any of
you TQM'ers, but I used it in an operational way for those with
whom I work.
(The word PROCESS as used in the following is abbreviated for
process, product, and service. I always simplify it since I have
yet to see a product or service which did not come from a process.
So, the clarifications will be around the word process. These are
my words, not my company's. The word process as used here
may mean system to you (complex process - the result of which
you cannot see in space or time if you are in the process)).
All of these are at the breakthrough level.
TQM
a.)Improve a broken process taking it to a new, much higher
level of performance; normally you already have a good idea
of what it will take. Put the resources on it and get it done.
b.)Radically improve a process which is already running well
but whose output in quantity, quality, costs, etc. is not sufficient
for the success of your customers. You know it is possible but
simply have not spent the time or dollars to really figure it out.
Crossover to Learning Organization
c).Radically improve a process which is already running well
but whose output in quantity, quality, costs, etc. is not sufficient
for the success of your customers. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE
AS TO HOW YOU WILL ACCOMPLISH IT BUT YOU MUST.
d.)CREATE A NEW POSSIBILITY for the organization.
Velcro (TM), Post-Its(TM), 24 hour delivery of packages,
etc.
Once we got past the point of "Training people more and better is
a Learning Organization", we could begin making distinctions and
are presently at the point of determining if bullet point b.) is a
Learning Organization or not. I understand that you might or might
not say it is. The important point is we are dialoguing on it IMHO and
winning the war of "MORE TRAINING BY ITESLF MAKES US
A LEARNING ORGANIZATION".
I have presently created a description which puts the Learning Org
at bullet points c.) and d.). It is not from any particular author but my
jaundiced view of what it sounds like to me that many authors are
saying and what the principles, disciplines, methods, and tools lead
me towards; creating, generating, originating, spawning new processes,
products, services, ads, communications, etc. in the organization. You
might say "new stuff" as our R&D folks like to say.
Thanks for keeping me honest Michael. After working at this for a few
years and having only recently won the battle of distinctions, I had
already be gun to lose my senstivity about keeping the distinctions in
place as I make my rounds.
Have a great day!!
-- Dave Buffenbarger Organizational Improvement Coach Dow Chemical Company (517) 638-7080 dwbuff@aol.com