tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9219053459653631458.post2865029871924647570..comments2024-03-28T21:09:02.778+05:30Comments on ID and Other Reflections: Automation is out; Innovation is in! How will L&D address this?Sahana Chattopadhyayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09533308240409984953noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9219053459653631458.post-66174360228988732432010-05-19T08:22:28.065+05:302010-05-19T08:22:28.065+05:30Howard,
Thank you very much for the comment.
I ...Howard,<br /><br />Thank you very much for the comment. <br /><br />I think you are spot on when you mention that it is a dynamic matrix. It is definitely dynamic in more ways than one, especially if I think that what is novel today, will become emergent tomorrow and so on.<br /><br />You have added a different dimension to my thinking of Cynefin with respect to training/education/PS. <br /><br />It is true that when novel practices emerge out of disorder, they seem confusing because they are new, untried, untested. Once they become emergent, and people begin to "practice" them, they move to the next quadrant. <br /><br />From these arise certain rules and "good practices" and so on. And this is a constantly moving matrix with practices moving from good to best to obsolete, and new ones emerging out of the chaos of the unknown once again... <br /><br />Training would aim to codify/formalize the emergent and turn these into good practices for as long as they work...<br /><br />I would love to hear more of your thoughts on the same...Sahana Chattopadhyayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09533308240409984953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9219053459653631458.post-74752315136206432162010-05-18T20:56:38.179+05:302010-05-18T20:56:38.179+05:30Thanks for the post! This type of post is a great...Thanks for the post! This type of post is a great prompt for my self-education.<br />First, contemplating your post, I began thinking of the Cynefin framework as a dynamic matrix ( it sort of looks like a matrix) instead of a simple 4 way domain classification scheme (5 way if you count disorder). It seems to me that new practices tend to begin from the left side, mostly near the upper left quadrant. New practices are often a response to disorder and tend to seem more complex just because we have less understanding of the new as it arises from disorder. <br />Second, I think the work of education / training / performance support is to move practice in such a matrix toward the right and bottom over time, simpler and better understood. I don't think this means that we are pushing everything toward automation / outsourcing, which only happens far to the right and bottom.<br />An example: research finds that a lack of communication in surgical teams is an important cause for surgical errors. The team implements a pre-surgery checklist that includes introductions for the assembled team and time to state the potential concerns of each team member so there is better understanding as the procedure progresses. This introduces a bit of standardization into the process making it simpler, allows people to focus their (limited) cognition for complexity on other parts of the surgical procedure, and improves performance without expecting them to be some sort of super team. If we expect everyone to work near the upper left quadrant, we may limit who is able to perform and how well they can perform.<br />I'm still thinking this out myself so any ideas are welcome and I think I'll address this on my blog as it congeals better.Howard Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09426998835138855839noreply@blogger.com