Replying to LO30965 --
Hi Don:
Thanks for your posting. I agree with your leanings when you said:
>I can imagine differences and variations, for example, even fixing on
>3 or 4 particular "steps" such as the ones named above; the
>relationships among them could well be more complex than a simple
>sequential loop. Also, I wonder if the same cycle applies to second-
>and higher-loop learning as well as "first order" learning. And what
>of the kind of "revolutionary learning" that occurs in a Kuhnian
>paradigm shift (which I think is similar to what At calls "bifurcative
>learning", where a "creative collapse" is essential to break out of
>the old paradigm)? I wouldn't be surprised if the typical cycle model
>fails to give an adequate description of such a case.
I think there is an important distinction to be made between a
decision or business cycle, and a learning cycle. At KMCI we
illustrate this distinction by showing how the two processes relate to
and integrate with one another. We call the combined processes the
Knowledge Life Cycle. Here's an illustration of that model (see
narrative on slide 2):
http://www.macroinnovation.com/images/KnowledgeLife8.01.03.pdf
Note how the Business Processing Environment (where decision-making
and action occur) includes single-loop learning as part its regular
behaviors, but when SLL breaks down, it "triggers" episodes of
double-loop learning. I think this is consistent with the kind of
"creative collapses," "bifurcative learnings," and Kuhnian paradigm
shifts you speak of.
Regards,
Mark
--"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.