Closing the Learning Loop

I tend to think of learning in terms of sensemaking (e.g., Klein's Data-Frame model), rather than, say direct instruction or constructivism.

However, an article I was reading recently (not on the web) triggered some thoughts about another view that I've seen expressed in a various disciplines...a view which focuses on how we internalize then communicate experience.

The key steps are:

1. Experience - a lived narrative. Raw sense data is stored in a loose structure that includes time, past narrative fragments, emotional intensity, etc.

2. Retrospective structuring - an ongoing process where the experience is relived, sensory data is structured, inferences are drawn, and individual data items are emphasized/de-emphasized. As the raw data is recalled and abstracted, a propositionally coherent structure is imposed on the data. Karl Weick sees this as a key aspect of sensemaking...hence his famous observation "how can I know what I think until I see what I say?" However, the emphasis here remains on the narrative...within an inferred structure that is the ground to the narrative figure.

3. Communication to self/others - this is the culmination of the previous step where the key aspects of the experience are verbalized.

This last step is where two approaches to communication become apparent. Depending on the context, either a narrative or a propositional approach may be taken. If the purpose is to entertain, narrative is likely. If the purpose is to persuade, propositions are often favored, especially in technical contexts.

None of this is especially noteworthy...except for technically-oriented professionals. We tend to be proposition-heavy and narrative-light in our communication.

Why is this a problem? It may not be. If a rich shared narrative exists, a proposition-heavy communication may be acceptable. However, if no such narrative exists, our audience is likely to struggle...if we don't wrap the propositions in a memorable narrative. Or, in a collaborative context, we may struggle to get beyond "talking past each other's propositions."

So, try to ensure that the learning loop is closed when communicating....from personal narrative to generalized propositions, then back to contextually-framed shared narrative.

Creating such a narrative for this set of propositions is left as an exercise to the reader...as is a discussion of the risks of over-emphasizing narrative (e.g., being perceived as superficial and manipulative)... :-)

Forgetting and Learning

While watching a PBS program on the "Botany of Desire" today, I was reminded of how important forgetting is in learning.

The program discusses THC (the psycho-active chemical in cannabis), a neurotransmitter with a similar shape (anandamide), and the importance of being able to forget (one effect of both chemicals) to avoid being paralyzed by fear or overwhelmed with contextually irrelevant data. A summary is available at "Cannabis, Learning, and The Botany of Desire" (pp. 14-ff).

Karl Weick, in his classic "The Social Psychology of Organizing", discusses the same issue as it relates to organizations. One section addresses the importance (and difficulty) of organizational "forgetting." In it he quotes a Journal of Applied Behavioral Science article discussing Albert Speer's (Hitler's minister of armaments) use of Allied bombing raids to enable organizational forgetting:

"These raids were 'helpful,' according to Speer, because they destroyed the filing facilities, those containers of paper which enable organizations to establish traditions, procedures, and so on, which are mainstays of bureaucracy. Speer was so enamored with the results of these bombing raids that, upon learning of the destruction of his ministry in the Allied air raid of November 22, 1943, he commented: 'Although we have been fortunate in that large parts of the current files of the Ministry have been burned and so relieved us for a time of useless ballast, we cannot really expect that such events will continually introduce the necessary fresh air into our work' (Singer and Wooten 1976, pp. 86-86).”

Organizational learning currently focuses on acquiring, structuring, storing, and retrieving information. As the volume of information explodes and hyperconnectivity moves many decision contexts into the complex domain, forgetting may need to be added as a core learning competency.

Contextualizing the Web

The techno-centric approach to adding context to the Web is the Semantic Web. Two recent articles make me wonder if the sensemaking approach to adding context will be the Mobile/Social Web:

• Techcrunch has an interesting discussion of a presentation by Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker highlighting the astonishing growth rates associated with the Mobile Web and the iPhone/iTouch. The entire presentation is available and worth reviewing.
• Dion Hinchcliffe has a much longer discussion of the shift from traditional Web sites to the Mobile/Social Web.

Neither really address what may be the truly revolutionary aspect of this shift: dramatically improved sensemaking driven by the contextual aspect of mobile/social. Instead of the user being almost totally responsible for framing and crafting IT/data to fit a use context, mobile/social IT can automatically sense key aspects of the use context and perform some of the framing/crafting work. The result: a potentially dramatic increase in the sophistication/depth of data/services that can be incorporated into a use context.

I suppose I should note that it's not either Semantic or Mobile/Social...it's both.

Limiting Innovation

Peter Merholz (Adaptive Path) talks about the "Highlander Principle" in this HBR blog post. He asserts that "there can only be one" true innovation in a new product if it is to succeed.

This is another area where cognitive & social limitations are often obvious only in retrospect. A use context of any complexity is usually tightly coupled to a larger ecosystem in ways that are difficult for both novices and experts to see. If an innovation is not almost "friction-free", the odds of it successfully carving out a niche (which usually means displacing existing capabilities and/or re-allocating/configuring existing resources) are low.

MIT's Sloan Management Review has a related discussion: small-fast use context experiments are a significant new tactic for innovation...at least for IT/data-intensive ecosystems.

DoD SOA Acquisition

The SOA craze has generated massive volumes of techno-talk, moderate volumes of biz-talk, and little discussion of how to move from acquiring systems to acquiring services.

Thanks to a colleague, I just ran across a good discussion of this issue: the AFEI's "Industry Recommendations for DoD Acquisition of Information Services and SOA Systems (7 July 2008)."

What I liked in the paper:

• Mission Logic and Mission Data receive equal attention
• The SOA stack shows dependencies up and down (i.e., SLAs & Reverse SLAs)
• The need for a different set of roles/rights/responsibilities is addressed. Table 1 seems to imply that the "role center of gravity" is shifting from technology to mission...which seems appropriate.
• Appendix A is a thoughtful proposal on how to incrementally employ SOA concepts

Things I wish had been discussed more:

• How organizational structures and processes need to change to cohere with the changes in roles.
• How agile is implemented at the mission level

Figure 4 ("Evolution of Mission Capabilities via SOA") is interesting...it traces the structure of the stack from the 1960's mainframe to today's virtualized service-based open system. It shows how standardization/interoperability has moved up the stack, resulting in finer-grained plug-n-play functions that allow solutions that are more agile/adaptable. But, it seems to be mostly techno-centric...there's no discussion of how this affects the way IT, data, decision making, decision makers, and groups are woven together to complete a task or mission.

Incremental Transformation?

This statement from Chapter 1 of "The Great Transformation" (Scott D. Anthony) caught my eye last week:

"Transformation comes from entering new markets and leaving old ones. Companies rarely transform themselves through cost cutting or improved operational effectiveness....in almost all cases, operational effectiveness is insufficient to stave off disruption and drive long-term competitive advantage."

In a footnote Anthony references a 2008 book by Steven Spear ("Chasing the Rabbit") that looks at some exceptions (Toyota, Southwest Airlines, Alcoa) that are characterized by a "learning culture."

I don't quite know what to think about the exceptions...is their synthesis of Exploitation and Exploration possible (at least in part), for example, because their business/capital/knowledge/etc. ecosystems are at the lower end of the complexity and/or rate-of-change spectrum? Or is this kind of incremental longevity possible in any ecosystem? Speculation is probably all that's possible...a large range of intertwined factors, many of which are impossible to analyze with any rigor, are likely responsible. About the only observation I feel comfortable making is that recipes are a sure path to failure.

Constraining Disruption

Disruptive innovation is often thought of as an unexpected and significant shift in how an offering addresses a job need. By that definition, it's unclear whether the MIT picture taking example John Sviokla discusses in "Getting Started in Disruptive Business Design" is really disruptive...it's not clear exactly what job/market is being served by a $150 high altititude picture-taking capability.

However, each of the four ideas he discusses shows how important constraints are in sparking disruptive innovation. One key constraint is the importance of focusing on a radical improvement in only *one* area (e.g., cost in the MIT example).

The MIT example also, perhaps inadvertently, illustrates two other aspects of disruptive innovation...one positive and one negative.

First, very expensive IT-intensive infrastructure is becoming cheap, pervasive, and interoperable. The MIT students leveraged the cell phone and GPS systems to quickly and inexpensively cobble together a basic capability.

And, as one of the students admits (in the Boston Globe article), most of their engineering classmates are unimpressed...what they did was just not complex enough. This may be the most significant barrier to disruptive innovation---engineers who prefer "cool engineering" over "cool capabilities."