>What we have forgotten here is that Kaufman's work is based on abstract
>1's and 0's whereas the systems under consideration are composed of
>humans.
>
>We know what happened when Friedman's NAIRU model essentially decooupled
>the human element from the Phillip's curve of unemployment/inflation. it
>became very easy to build a model which set what appeared to be immutable
>parameters. We won't discuss the socio/political consequences but just
>point out that we will have severe problems when one tries to take an
>economic system and reduce it to a set of mathematical models.
>
>And, we then also reopen the entire philosophical arguement on
>predestination.
>
>This is the great issue- why worry about a learning organizaion if the
>organization can be reduced to a model? This is more than intellectual
>sophistry
"We" can choose to be ignorant of our theories in use, but we can not
choose not to use them. If we inquire into how organizations "learn" it
seems useful to make explicit theories about organizational behavior.
I would be skeptical if an "organization can be reduced to a model".
However, I have no difficultly with multiple models, each model providing
a map brings a different facit of organizational behavior to the
forground. Of course, the map is not the territory.
Doug Merchant
Currently On Career Sabbatical
--"Doug Merchant" <dougm@eclipse.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>