Replying to LO28806 --
Jan:
There IS a process-based reference model for OL, but you won't find it in
the OL literature. Instead, you'll find it in the KM literature
(knowledge management); not the usual KM, but 'The New KM." Several
members of the Knowledge Management Consortium International
(www.kmci.org) developed this model starting in late 1998, and it is now
the centerpiece of a course that I co-teach there on knowledge and
innovation management (and OL). The model is called the Knowledge Life
Cycle (KLC), and it's a social, process-based view of learning and
knowledge processing based largely on complexity theory, OL (Argyris), and
Karl Popper's epistemology. It's quite mature now and has been heavily
vetted.
The KLC has spawned many new frameworks for practice, including my own (
www.macroinnovation.com ). More importantly, it points the way towards
understanding that knowledge is a nonlinear outcome in social systems, and
there are no deterministic solutions (in practice) for making
organizations learn better. Even Peter Senge refers to his own approach
as a 'theory of practice,' but certainly not the only theory. I agree
with you that ANY theory of practice must be predicated on a clearly
defined theory (reference model) for how learning happens in human social
systems, and that this kind of unifying model has been missing in OL. I
also believe that OL's troubles in recent years can be traced to this
missing element, for how can we take OL seriously in the absence of a
theory for how learning happens in organizations? How can we possibly
know whether or not our interventions have had impact if we don't have a
model of the target system?
The KLC provides such a model, along with an ontology for organizational
learning that I and many others find utterly satisfying. Give it a look.
Regards,
Mark
Jan Lelie wrote:
>Two things seem to be missing from the LO-set: a process model and a
>reference model. The latter thing - in my view - that is lacking, a
>(meta-)model for ease of reference: when to use what intervention offered
>by the Fifth Discipline. For instance, when do I apply "Team Learning"
>best? or can I use "Visioning" now? or Where do I put in "Systems
>Thinking"? etc. The meta-model for this has been presented by Will
>McWhinney.
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
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.