|Welcome to the listserv Del and thanks for your intro. Many of us on this
|list might be interested in knowing more about the "flaws" that you have
|observed regarding the utilization of technology in implementing the
|learning organization concept. Specifically, what your experiences have
|been regarding the contrast you observed between the "practitioners"
|and for those "who never use technology." We look forward to hearing
|more on these issues that you mentioned in your intro.
|
|Yogesh Malhotra
|malhotra@vms.cis.pitt.edu
|University of Pittsburgh
Thank you for your interest in my work. I'll try to be informative and I
hope that I am not coming to the rescue of a dead horse. First, in regards
to the differences between those who are "users" and the "non-users" of
technology, it is like night and day. Both see that there is advantages to
using collaborative systems and ubiquitous networks, but the users WILL
use it and the wanabes still depend on others to use it. I am specifically
referring to top level management of major corporations and institutions.
Those who have people doing almost everything for them in the work place.
Those non-users see the benefits for others and not for themselves. I get
reactions like "Boy, can my team/group/people use that!", when we want
them to say "Boy could I use that!" They want us to "put it on my
administrator's desktop."
Its funny though, that when a top exec is a user, he seldom needs
technical support and has already become involved in work on electronic
networks. I also see a difference in the results from the groups led by
these people. Openness is the standard approach by the users and a closed
and controlled environment is standard for those who still depend on
paper. I generalize here, but it is to demonstrate a difference and is not
intended as a scientific survey.
Technology doesn't solve problems, people solve problems. Technology is a
tool that people can use to make problem solving easier and cheaper (in
some instances). The flaws I sometimes see is in the expectations of those
who want to use technology. We expect it to be perfect and do wonderful
things simply and as uncomplicated as paper and pencil. We get glitches
and bumps in the road that distract us and we give up. Why? Expectations?
We seldom account for the changes in behavior that must occur for people
to use a new tool. Telephones, television, automobiles, commercial air
travel, microwaves and VCRs went through the same acceptance issues. ( Why
do I need it? What will it do for me? I don't have time for it? I'll see
if it is more than a fad before I get one.) What are they really telling
us? I hear things here like "This is a change I am unwilling to make at
this time for several reasons." The flaws I see in our ability to use the
technology tools is that we practitioners forget this aspect of those who
are not practitioners. We implement things that we KNOW will help, but it
doesn't get used or it doesn't help. We forget to help people change. We
expect the technology to change them instead.
I also believe that this is true for many other changes that are facing us
today. Technology is not the only area where the mental models must
change. This is all documented in books by learned authors and I have seen
it in practice. The one most important fact that keeps coming back to me
is that; it is me that must change, not others. If I change, I will be
successful. If others change, we all will be successful. But first, I must
change. I must learn and keep on learning. If I see something that is
good, I need to learn about it. I then must set the example in the
practice of this new learning and hope others see the results are
positive. Then and only then can I help them.
I am to the point that I don't expect others to change. I expect that I
will learn and grow and change each day. If others are too, then we all
get better. I can help others but only when they see that I can help. Time
and again I see people reach a high level of acceptance in their given
field or discipline and stop learning about other fields. This is (I
think) a mental model I would like to understand better. I am not
knowledgable of organizational learning, in fact I am less than a novice.
However, I live in a practical world not a theoretical one. My life long
ambitions abound with learning and applying that learning to my day-to-day
activities. Unfortunately, it will be many lifetimes before I can do it
every time. I am knowledgable about certain technology and am beginning to
understand the dynamics technology exerts on the organization and the
individuals who make up an organization.
Creating a simple but effective corporate knowledge repository and memory
is as difficult as creating a learning organization. We want them both to
be uncomplicated. Our expectations are established by our knowledge base.
What we know is simple to us. What we don't know is too complicated to
understand without time and practice no matter what the topic. How can we
look beyond our dreams for our tools and concepts to understand the
relationships between them? This is one flaw: The technology of a
collaborative environment (or CKR) should be simple so that I can use it
to accomplish a more complex task of creating change and shifts in how
things work. When the actuallity of it is that neither are simple and the
relationship is even more complex, but we don't like to hear that and I
feel that we don't respond to it very well.
Del Wilson
From: MSMWHQ09.DWILSO01@eds.com
"Knowing that you do not know everything is far wiser than thinking that you
know a lot when you really don't. Anyway, it is a relief to be able to say
"I don't know." - Lao Tzu from Tao Te Ching