Discussion 2 - Phases in Linear Development

Phases of change in Linear Development in Learning Approaches: Organizational change is described as how an organization changes its strategies, structure, operational methods, organizational culture, or technologies to affect its growth and its effects on the organization. It can occur for distinct periods or be continuous. According to Arthur M. Langer (2018), focusing solely on the individual's role in the organization is an inadequate approach to forming an efÏcient learning plan. The author suggests an approach based on a concept named learning maturation, which incorporates the learning of individuals and the organization in the life cycle of learning. The author chooses a different way to depict the relationship between individual and organizational learning over time, to outline a "maturity" arc called ROD arc to demonstrate the life cycle of technology and organizational learning. Every sector of ROD is measured in a linear and integrated way. Every step in the learning development stage, the author presents how organizational and individual learning techniques work collectively but emerge specifically. Types of learning are categorized into Phase 1,2 and 3, respectively. Phase 1 is an early stage of learning organization development; individual contemplative methods apply to organize operations and line management. New culture establishes with no change in the organizational structure. This initial phase lacks executive involvement due to limited integration. Phase 2 is a blend of event-driven and early-stage social, organizational learning formation. Line managers retain new training and partake in more insignificant event-driven learning. Social assimilation stability with existing structures; early phase of IT organizational alliance with similar groups. Strategic integration in initial stages of value/needs based on a similar strategic arrangement. Phase 3 is a shift towards social-based organizational decision making, applicable to the different uses of technology. Away from the holistic formation of IT into a separate driver and supporter attributes. Individual and organizational methods both integrate for the learning approach are based on functionality, as objected to being organizationally specific. Based on business requirements, social structures indicate strategic integration. These different phases of the learning process will further mature an organization's ability to incorporate technology, strategically and culturally. The author represented the relationship between individual and organizational learning using a maturity arc called the ROD arc. I like how he illustrated the life cycle of technology and organizational learning by dividing them into five developmental stages. You have broken them into simple terms and explained the learning phases pretty well. I want to add a few points to it. As you mentioned, during the initial stages, the organizations would not be much more precise on their methods; there is a chance for confusion as it is an early stage of learning. Even though there will be no organizational structural changes in the early stages, organizations tend to experience new cultures. According to the author's original study, technology helped stimulate growth or stimulate organizational learning's maturation process. In Phase Two, as you stated, integration is observed with similar IT groups; this is a blend of even- driven and early-stage social, organizational formation. Yes, this involves a change in cultural assimilation. In this phase, the learning method evolved by expediting the need for structural change in the actual reporting processes of IT. In Phase Three, as you said, learning maturation involves, and there is a need to train the organization's executive management team. Their lack of knowledge/expertise may result in the inability to defend many of its cost requirements. For example, the author stated about a situation in Ravell where executive management's lack of knowledge resulted in persistent problems with following the relationship and value of IT on the organization's business units. Your post is detailed and well informed. I want to add a few more points. Every step in the learning development stage, the author presented how organizational and individual learning techniques work collectively but emerge specifically. As you mentioned in the first phase of learning, we see a change from an individual-based learning process to one that is based on more social and organizational issues to stimulate transformation. As a result of this, new cultures establish with no change in the organizational structure. However, if we consider the responsive organizational dynamism, strategic integration seems to be limited due to a lack of executives' involvement. It is phase two, where Line managers defend the new culture and participate in less event-driven learning and learning processes matured by accelerating the need for structural change in the actual reporting process of IT. This phase is a combination of an early-stage social, organizational learning formation, and also event-driven. Organizational integration with similar groups is seen in IT's early phases when cultural assimilation is considered in responsive organizational dynamism. In Phase Three, as you mentioned, the learning approaches are integrated using individual and organizational methods based on functionality as objected to meaning organizationally specific. There is a need to train the organization's executive management team. Their lack of knowledge/expertise may result in the inability to defend many of its cost requirements. This phase is a shift towards social-based managerial decision making, relative to the different used if technology. These different learning phases help to mature further an organization's ability to integrate technology culturally and strategically.