Doug Jones writes at length about the organization's ability to learn.
I've snipped out the portions to which I am responding.
...snip...
>I don't know where I come down on this topic. On the one hand, I agree
>that the definition of life does in part encompass the act of learning
>that proceeds from the stimulus-response model.
There is a lot of opposition to the stimulus-response model at the level
of individuals, let alone those aggregates we call organizations.
Moreover, in the absence of some kind of central intelligence, the S-R
model would not be a good fit with organizations. You might want to
consider some other model of learning.
...snip...
>First, I can point to the rapidly developing field of
>cybernetics/robotics, and the general discipline of artificial
>intelligence, as an area where serious research is being done to imbue the
>non-living with the learning capacities of the living. The capabilities
>of these early "learning machines" are still very crude (maybe up to the
>level of an earthworm), but one can argue very strongly that they do learn
>in much the same way that a living organism learns. Therefore, the "living
>vs: non-living" criteria as a measure of some intrinsic ability to learn
>is not as viable as it might have been a decade ago.
Your statement that it can be argued that organizations learn much the
same way that living organisms learn is on somewhat shaky ground. I'm not
so sure we know how organisms learn. Educational psychologists have lots
of theories, and lots of disagreements among themselves but, so far as I
know, there are only theories, no proofs. So, I can argue that
organizations learn much the same way my theory of learning says people
learn, but that is a giant step away from saying that organizations learn
the same way people learn.
...snip...
>Now here is the big (and shaky) leap. In the same way that I believe that
>human thought and the capacity to learn transcends and is separate from
>the actions and interactions of individual neurons; I can conceive a model
>where the organization's capacity to learn transcends and is separate from
>the actions and interactions of individual people in the organization.
>The analogy is admittedly crude, but it might prove useful, especially in
>light of the exponential rate at which organizations are computer
>networking their knowledge workers. Picture this simple scenario.
>Customers are repeatedly being frustrated by not getting timely/accurate
>information on their orders. One person has a new idea on how to give
>customers instant and accurate information. A few innovative people are
>recruited and together they figure out how to combine network access with
>existing database information to allow simple tracking of orders and
>instant access to this tracking information from any PC. A pilot project
>is set up in one department of 50 people, it's successful, and the new
>system is rolled out eventually to 500 peole across the whole company.
>Learning is clearly occurring at the individual level as the new
>capability cascades through the organization. But one can also argue that
>there is more going on here than the learning in each individual brain.
>Many dynamic things are changing in the organization that exist separate
>from, yet interact with, the individuals to make the newly "learned"
>process (response) possible. Databases are created, constantly updated,
>and linked in new ways within the corporate network. Network software is
>generated to support the new customer support system. Key lessons learned
>from customer interactions are captured on the fly and become part of the
>continuously evolving "corporate memory"; and this growing pool of
>customer information is instantly accessable, searchable, sortable etc.
>by any and everyone while they are on the phone with the next customer,
>and the next, and the next and so on. Now, when a customer contacts the
>company, the response (instant and accurate information) is the same so
>matter at what point they interact with the company. The organizational
>response, in other words, has in many important respects, become
>independent of the individual players within the organization. This is
>not a bad representation of an organization that has the capacity to
>learn. Of course, in the end, it is always a person, not the
>organization, that the customer gets on the phone.
>
>So, do organizations truly learn? I don't have a clue.
The segment above is very interesting and shows how the organization can
acquire knowledge that is created by people; however, as Doug points out,
it is ultimately applied by other people.
As for your last question, Doug, I suggest backing up the discussion one
step:
What is your definition of learning?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@worldnet.att.net
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>