Huber (1991) notes that "it might be reasonable to conclude that more learning has occurred when more and more varied interpretations have been developed, because such development changes the range of the organization's potential behaviors..." (p.102). However, most extant information systems focus on the convergence of interpretation and are not geared for multiple interpretations Argyris (1977). Mason & Mitroff (1973), in their seminal article, had noted that the Lockean and Leibnitzian characteristic of the dominant MIS model as its limiting characteristics. These designs are based on the convergence of interpretations. In contrast, Kantian and Hegelian inquiry systems Churchman (1971) are needed for facilitating multiple interpretations. These systems also underlie the notion of "unlearning" Hedberg (1981) which implies discarding of "obsolete and misleading knowledge." While Kantian inquirer offers complementary interpretations, the Hegelian inquirer offers a "deadly enemy" contradictory interpretation. The dialectic of convergent and divergent inquiry facilitates the surfacing of hidden assumptions.

Argyris (1977) has argued that the "massive technology of MIS, quality control systems, and audits of quality control systems is designed for single loop learning." Essentially, he asserts that the problem of using IT is in its reinforcement of the prevailing [rigid] structures cf: Orlikowski (1991). He attributes the overarching command-and-control structures for the "gaps of knowledge" that top managers design to manage effectively: "Another set of attitudes usually developed is that lower level managers and employees can be trusted only to the extent that they can be monitored" (p. 117). He argues that the problems related to MIS implementation are more related to organizational factors than to the underlying technology.

Argyris (1977) suggests that there are "deeper" reasons behind the implementation gap of MIS, especially when the technology was used to deal with the more complex and ill-structured problems faced by the organization. He suggests that the MIS need to be viewed as a part of a more general problem of Organizational Learning. He avers that an organization may be said to learn to the extent that it identifies and corrects error. This requirement, in turn, implies that learning also requires the capacity to know when it is unable to identify and correct errors.

He argues that the overwhelming amount of learning done in an organization is single loop because the "underlying program is not questioned": it is designed to identify and correct errors so that the job gets done and the action remains within stated policy guidelines. "The massive technology of MIS, quality control systems, and audits of the quality control systems is designed for single loop learning" (p.113). The trouble arises when the technology is not effective and when the underlying objectives and policies must be questioned. [Compare with IT reinforcing the existing controls Orlikowski (1991); also the discontinuous change may pose this need.]

In our opinion, there are strong points that prompt us to support the ideas of “LO”. First of all, in an “LO”, there is a collective, open, and trans-range environment where team members are encouraged to learn, share their own information /conclusion, and furthermore to dedicate themselves on the experimental and interrelated learning. In this kind of environment, members get recognition and feedback once they excel their performance. They don't tend to fear or take defense and are given the opportunity to learn from the mistakes. Thus, members are convinced that each job experience is an opportunity they can learn from.

From the perspective of the organization, the process of learning and the outcomes are valued equally important. They are ready to take risks, dare to try, learn from the experience, improve their weaknesses, and stimulate the leaders to cope with business in an innovative way so that an organization can equip itself with better adaptivity and creativity.

Personally, Mike had worked in a non-profit charity organization called “Eden Social Welfare Foundation” for a couple of years. It's an organization that aims at offering disabled individuals and minority groups' social welfare and gospel services both for their bodies and souls. According to his own working experience and some interviews he has done for those who still work in that environment, “Eden” is now experiencing the transformation of turning itself into a “LO”. At the beginning, it was founded by a wheelchair writer with 2 Christians wishing to improve the overall conditions of disabled individuals in Taiwan. Twenty years later after overcoming a myriad of obstacles, this foundation has evolved into a national institution employing over 700 full time staff across the country. During the past twenty years, Eden Foundation has sought to make it possible for disabled individuals to fully participate in mainstream society through various means.

According to Mike's understanding, the founders are gradually taking the mode of marketing and experiments to push its business. For example, the basic working unit in Eden is “team” who each member in it has their specialty and work together with each other to take care of the cases they are assigned. For example, once a team is assigned to take the case of finding job placement for the disables, the leaders in that team is in charge of everything from what to do and when to finish. The leaders have to take all the responsibility in the procession of the case. Also, they make every team a trans-function one which can support one another with their specializing expertise. There is also one unique feature about Eden. The founders make the first hour of every day's work as “sharing” hour where each member communicate with their leaders and colleagues about their jobs, experiences, visions and problems they're facing. There is also a “core meeting” held every week when every member are joint together to discuss about the procession of their work, the expected goals in the coming week, the communications of the ideas and the help each department needs. Through the kind of system thinking, Eden can connect each problem as a whole and thus find out the appropriate solutions.

As for the employees, in entering the company, Eden makes every employee take a basic training about the ideas of the company and the covering of their job. Also, each of the members, including the directors and supervisors, is required to take “on-the-job training”. They get subsidies if they're willing to take trainings outside the company or out of the working hours. They could also choose to take training in fields that are less associated with their work coverings. All these various training sessions are meant to enhance the efficiency and functionality of the team.

The original idea of setting up this organization is meant to help just the disabled individuals with what they need and help them find jobs. Gradually, Eden had found the lack of their skills and capabilities to manage their works. So Eden started making a series of job training programs for them. But it wasn't until that time when Eden found that many disables' knowledge and intelligence weren't good enough to understand and absorb what they learned from Eden. Seeing that all the problems they were facing were actually interrelated with one another, Eden realized the lives of those disables need to be planned and assisted since they are young. They found scholars, social workers and the help of the government to improve the situation. After some discussing and a thorough thinking, they work on a series of programs and laws in taking care of the lives of the disables both in education and work.

The concept of the LO is not without its problems, however. For example Kunchinke (1995) suggests that it is simply another management fad that is under-researched. (See also West, 1994) Some also figures that within a capitalist system Senge's vision of companies and organizations turning wholehearted to the cultivation of the learning of their members can only come into fruition in a limited number of instances. While those in charge of organizations will usually look in some way to the long-term growth and sustainability of their enterprise, they may not focus on developing the human resources that the organization houses. The focus may well be on enhancing brand recognition and status (Klein 2001); developing intellectual capital and knowledge (Leadbeater, 2000); delivering product innovation; and ensuring that production and distribution costs are kept down. Such conditions are hardly conducive to building the sort of organization that Peter Senge proposes. Here the case against Senge is that within capitalist organizations, where the bottom line is profit, a fundamental concern with the learning and development of employees and associates is simply too idealistic.

Yet there are some currents running in Peter Senge's favor. The need to focus on knowledge generation within an increasingly globalized economy does bring us back in some important respects to the people who have to create intellectual capital. Productivity and competitiveness are, by and large, a function of knowledge generation and information processing: firms and territories are organized in networks of production, management and distribution; the core economic activities are global – that is they have the capacity to work as a unit in real time, or chosen time, on a planetary scale. (Castells, 2001: 52)

A failure to attend to the learning of groups and individuals in the organization spells disaster in this context. As Leadbeater (2000: 70) has argued, companies need to invest not just in new machinery to make production more efficient, but also in the flow of know-how that will sustain their business. Organizations need to be good at knowledge generation, appropriation and exploitation. This process is not that easy:

A question of sophistication and disposition: One of the biggest problems with Peter Senge's approach is nothing to do with the theory; it's rightness, nor the way it is presented. The issue here is that the people to whom it is addressed do not have the disposition or theoretical tools to follow it through. One clue lies in his choice of ‘disciplines' to describe the core of his approach. As we saw a discipline is a series of principles and practices that we study, master and integrate into our lives. In other words, the approach entails significant effort on the part of the practitioner. It also entails developing quite complicated mental models, and being able to apply and adapt these to different situations – often on the hoof. Classically, the approach involves a shift from product to process (and back again). The question then becomes whether many people in organizations can handle this. All this has a direct parallel within formal education. One of the reasons that product approaches to curriculum (as exemplified in the concern for SATs tests, examination performance and school attendance) have assumed such a dominance is that alternative process approaches are much more difficult to do well. They may be superior – but many teachers lack the sophistication to carry them forward. There are also psychological and social barriers. As Lawrence Stenhouse put it some years ago: ‘The close examination of one's professional performance is personally threatening; and the social climate in which teachers work generally offers little support to those who might be disposed to face that threat' (1975: 159).

The process of exploring one's performance, personality and fundamental aims in life (and this is what Peter Senge is proposing) is a daunting task for most people. To do it we need considerable support, and the motivation to carry the task through some very uncomfortable periods. It calls for the integration of different aspects of our lives and experiences. There is, here, a straightforward question concerning the vision – will people want to sign up to it? To make sense of the sorts of experiences generated and explored in a fully functioning ‘learning organization' there needs to be ‘spiritual growth' and the ability to locate these within some sort of framework of commitment. Thus, as employees, we are not simply asked to do our jobs and to get paid. We are also requested to join in something bigger. Many of us may just want to earn a living!