The cybernetic perspective emphasizes the ability to explicitly design an organization's learning capabilities.
Organizing for Organizational Learning
8De Raadt does not make a distinction between double-loop and deutero learning. This distinction is discussed in the section 4.5 (on organization development). It suffices here to state that the term double-loop learning refers to learning about the basic assumptions of the management theory used in single-loop learning processes. Deutero learning is about the way the organization facilitates learning by e.g. the development of openess and creativity, encouragement of innovations, quality circles etc. The deutero learning is specifically an organization development subject, because it is about issues like interpersonal relations, power relations, and cultural change.
Why can people be better learners within organizations than without this social context? This question is basic for motivating people to learn in organizations, and very close to the subject of organization design (including the development of structures, systems, procedures and policies). Herbert Simon (1976, pp. 102-103) answers this question by describing five principles (premises) that transform individual behavior to organizational behavior. These principles are: the division of work, the establishment of standard practices and work procedures, the transmission of decisions via systems of authority and influence, the provision of channels of communication, and the training and indoctrination of organization members.
The division of (learning) work allows people to concentrate on specific problematic topics, analyze them and try to find solutions for the organization. It is also possible that people are connected to jobs that are the input for the learning process (for instance data gathering and storage), and manage this in a very careful and professional way. For instance, it is quite unlikely that someone can be an excellent problem analyst, solution constructor, implementor of the solutions, and manager of a department all at the same time (applying all relevant abstract conceptualizations). Therefore, the division of work and allocation of learning tasks are essential for having effective learning systems in organizations.
Because of the division of work, people need clear standard practices and procedures so that the separate tasks in the learning process are well connected. A classic problem here is that data providers use different meanings (semantics) for data than the information system's end users. Multinationals, for instance, often cannot tell how well or badly they are doing internationally, because the data are defined in different ways in the separate countries. They therefore require expert studies to give the CEOs a useful, consolidated, body of knowledge. Executive Information Systems projects therefore require (re)formulation of the data definitions, so that the interpretation of the data can be done automatically. Via this standard practise and procedure, the delay between problem occurrence and problem identification is shortened, and the CEOs have tools to make intelligent analyses themselves.
Transmission of knowledge and ideas occurs via systems of authority and influence. These systems can be authoritarian, which means that the manager thinks for the organization, and organization members only have to obey or act accordingly. In the case of a paper mill studied by Zuboff (1988), changing the information transmission processes implied a change in the authority and influence structure. This change was resisted by the middle management, who feared the loss of any reason for existence of their jobs. Nevertheless as a consequence, feedback cycles were shortened, leading to less loss and higher performance. Also, more people were engaged in problem- solving by adding insights from their own specialization and attention focus. For this heterogeneous group to become effective, personal power was replaced by skills of communication and group interaction.
Channels of communication are very important in the cybernetic paradigm for starting learning. It is not only the computer-based information system that supports these
communication channels, but also the formal and informal communication systems that must be made easier.
Training and indoctrination aim at the internalization of basic norms and knowledge. The double-loop learning process challenges these internalized norms and knowledge, which is very important for not getting an organization of unthinking people.
A Method for Learning: Using Learning Curves
The learning curve describes the costs of a product unit through time. The assumption of this perspective is that in doing a certain job recurrently, a learning process is started up by which the cost
per unit product decreases. (See figure 4.5).
Knowing the precise shape of this slope is extremely important for business, because it improves the cost estimation of a product considerably, and is an indication of the price competitiveness of a company. According to Yelle (1979) the first decades of learning curve research (1935-1969) were dominated by a 'classic industrial
engineering' perspective, with as the main topics: shapes of the learning curve, parameter estimation, industrial engineering applications such as setting time standards and incentives, classic cost control, and purchasing and bidding functions. Since the 1970s, topics have moved to business policy-making, and public and service-related issues, which indicates a double-loop learning process. One of these modern issues is e.g. the relation between the learning curve and the product life cycle.
Argote, Beckman and Epple (1990) also posed the question: how does learning happen through time, and how can knowledge be transferred between organizations and departments? With respect to the first issue, the researchers found that after a period of steady decreases, production costs start to increase. This is explained from the fact that organizational knowledge is often not well adapted so that it depreciates. This explanation is also consistent with results in psychology on the lack of persistence of individual learning. Concerning knowledge transfer or distribution, Argote, Beckman and Epple found in their empirical study on World War II US navy ship building, that:
" The initial gain in production may have been due to learning by doing in the design and construction of shipyards and the equipment used in them as well as to learning by doing in the construction of ships. Once shipyards began production they did not benefit from learning at other yards (p. 151)" (whereas the ships they built were almost
identical).
In a case study in a multinational, multi-plant electronics firm, Adler (1990) was more successful in finding evidence for a learning curve as a result of knowledge transfer among departments. This empirical study analyzed knowledge sharing between the Development and Production departments of the company, knowledge transfer from an initial location to a newly set up plant, and ongoing knowledge transfer between different production locations. Adler concluded that from this case, called Hi-Tech, that apparently much learning curve research has been on the wrong track, because of the focus on capacity utilization. Adler concluded:
" It is primarily 'learning,' the accumulation of knowledge in the form of manufacturing knowhow, rather than capacity utilization, that accounts for the rapid productivity growth rates by Hi-Tech" (p. 939).
To create effective knowledge transfer it is important to use a communication medium with appropriate richness (Daft and Lengel, 1986). As many organizations are strongly differentiated, a very rich medium is required or otherwise a strong codification of the knowledge transferred must be realized (Boisot, 1986). Some cases illustrate the effectiveness of this last perspective (c.f. CSC Index, 1990).