I want to discuss a case I did some 20 years ago. At the time, I was doing some study on [UNKNOWN] and I observed the two companies. And idealize that the two companies despite the very similar context in terms of geography, in terms of human resources [INAUDIBLE]. So starting point were very similar, but despite those similarities the company over time, the two company over time developed very different approaches in terms of managing their problem solving. One company has become much better in they say, internal learning, in other words learning things and improving, things inside the company. The managers and the employees and workers themselves get involved in the learning process, and they improve their productivity, and they improve their process by using these internal resources. On the other end, the other company, over time, has developed a really good you know, capability to solve these problems externally. In other words, they work with this research institute and the universities and some research centers. And they, you know, they brought their internal problems outside and you know, work with those external participants to work on their problem, and solve it. Despite their very different approaches to problem-solving it takes knowledge development, these company were doing great. Both are doing great, two good companies. So I was concerned or I was you know asking how that happen? I mean that these to company started with very similar conditions, and over time the took a very different path. To problem solving. To innovation. To improving. This is what hope is. So the two companies are very different companies. If I give you some analogy, it, it probably looks like this. Let's say this is time. And then initially these two companies share much commonality. But over time one company moves to this way, in other words internal orientation, the other company moves that way, let's say external orientation. It's not just about, it does not mean the, where the one company improves, the other one is not, it just approaches. Internal problem solving and external problem solving. How that happens, I mean that despite their initial similarities. So I tried to explain why that happened, and then I realized, that there is, some very interesting, you know, concepts present in all these dynamics, which I called learning propensity learning propensity. In other words, the middle level managers intention, how to solve problems, how to, you know, develop these things, how to improve all these processes. So these two companies, the managers at these two companies, have very different ideas about what is the right way to solve problems and what is the more effective way to tackle these problems and what is the most efficient way to develop new technology and so on and so forth. And I realized that that propensity was shaped by two factors. One is ready fundamental determining factors, top managers. Despite their similarities to companies that started with very different infrastructures in logistic assistance. And they develop a very different product mix strategy. And all this somehow because of their, you know, time managers motivation and probably the mission that time managers face when the, you know, they establish their own company. And these determining factors over time, shape the company's objectives and goals. Whether it's cost of reduction, daytime reduction, or quality [INAUDIBLE]. And I believe that the, these two factors to you know, determining factors, of the top managers and also the system [INAUDIBLE] objectives. Shape the middle, middle upper management's learning intention, learning propensity. And over time, really you know, a little bit at the initial stage, there's middle level managers develop their own learning propensity. In other words initially who is probably perception. Right? Based on the determining factors, based on our competence objectives I think this works better than the others. And then they actually allocated their managerial attention as well as the resources in accordance with their perception, right? In accordance with their perception. And as they spend more time, as they focus more on the particular choice of method, the method becomes more effective. It's pretty natural right, if you spend more time, if you put more effort, if you allocate more resources, more attention to particular activity, then that activity becomes better, you perform that activity better and better. [BLANK_AUDIO] And I think that there was sort of, reinforcing cycle going on. [BLANK_AUDIO] But if everything is you know, okay. In other words, if everything moves in the direction expected then everything's fine. But sometimes there's short term learning is not compatible with the long term trend. In other words, sometimes you gotta have to change your set. But incrementally for really an extended period, extended period of time, you moved a certain way, right? For example I say, a company moves in that way over time. If everything's okay. In other words, if that pattern, if that path is compatible with the environment, then everything is okay. But somehow let's say there is some very big impact from the environment. In other words this path is not right so you have to, you have to change your course. You have to change your path in other words. You have to change your path and you have to move the other direction. But then, it's not easy to occur. It's not easy, because you are so much accustomed to this direction so if you want to deject your code on the path, it takes more than just a [UNKNOWN] force learning cycle. So that takes a big force from the actual, the source or location to the determining factors. In other words, this kind of fundamental shift must, must driven, must be driven by indeterminate factors. You know, there's, big changes must be there. Big determination. Big factors must be there. So this model, so called learning propensity model, was developed by observing these two shepherding companies. But I think that the analysis looks uh,pretty much compatible with the created [UNKNOWN] double/g-lived learning and single-lived learning. In other words this cycle, this you know, middle level manages learning propensity, their perception, actual resource location, and idealized effectiveness and the enforcing loop. This is the single journey okay? Short term, short term journey and short term problem solving. And they become better and better. But sometimes if we have to take a big changes in our course, we have to reject the path we're taking. Then there gotta be some much larger dynamics there. And this is for double-loop learning right? Okay, so this is an example of how we can apply the single-loop learning and double-loop learning to actual operations problem solving into actual, you know, operation strategy development. [BLANK_AUDIO]
