Replying to LO27511 --
Brian Hinken wrote:
>Marilyn, in your reply (LO27428) to the thread "After Action Review (as
>used by U.S. Army)" you characterized the Army's AAR as "one of the best,
>and certainly the longest standing, double-loop learning practices in
>existence". Obviously, my view, as I've described above, differs from
>your view. So, I'm curious about whether we have different
>understandings of what "double-loop learning" actually means. What does
>"double-loop leaning" mean to you, and how do you see that AAR
>incorporates this?
IMHO, there is limitation of deeper Double Loop Learning in the case of
army - while double loop learning could be employed in further enhancing
the effectiveness of the army strategies, action in accordance to the
desired mission or objectives etc. it would be disastrous if deeper double
loop learning is employed, for example to question the fundamentals - why
engage is such a war? Certain key mental models and premises are not to be
questioned, especailly at war scene!
Regards
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew Wong
QuaSyLaTic Knowledgebase Reflection & Inspirational Corner
http://www.360q.com/
QuaSyLaTic Investment Knowledge
http://www.360q.com/360q_invest_knowledge.htm
An Associate of Amazon:
http://www.360q.com/360q_bookstore.htm
QuaSyLaTic Virtual Community Organiser:
http://www.360q.com/360q_communities.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--"Andrew Wong" <andrewwhs@hotmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.