Mike,
I appreciate the clarification and extension of your thinking. I'm not
familiar with Holland's work, so my only source of knowledge, at this
point, is what you say. Of all that you said, in my reply to my message,
the following caught my attention:
> This is a case of not taking Holland's point of chunking down the
> original work, saving the chunks (analysis, circumstance information,
> etc) and then from time to time returning to the chunks rather than
> the larger chunk solution. It is also a frequently repeated
> condition because the general principle is not understood.
This is a very intriguing idea, and one I had never considered. How can
"chunking" be done without consuming an inordinate amount of resources?
How can the "chunks" be stored for later retrieval and re-examination?
Both situations I describe are fairly common in my division (not
necessarily the entire company). We create "knowledge" all the time, but
we never take the time to document the reasoning and circumstances that
led to the new knowledge. It has been my long-held position that without
documenting this information, knowledge continue longer than it should
(which it has), and that would eventually hurt our business.
The problem I face is that the ideas you're talking about are very
"abstract" for the average manager who is more concerned with meeting
performance objectives than he/she is about critically thinking about
their business. I'd be very interested to hear how you overcome this
obstacle in your work.
--Benjamin B. Compton bbcompton@aol.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>