My experiences in this course thus far have been completely reflected in the 2013 paper by Michael Synnott. In his discussion and research into double loop learning through the illustration of the HS2 rail system.
Synnott outlines the concept that mere reflection on the results of an experiment will only illuminate the goals of that experiment rather than the solution to the real problem at hand. Synnott states that this kind of reflection or the single loop reflection does not provide those involved with any kind of actionable process, or the grounds in which to fruitfully actively experiment as required in Daudelins reflection paper for critical thought. Perhaps implied by Daudelin and Kolb but expressly illuminated by Synnott is the fact that if reflection is upon a flawed premise there will be no value in the theory formulation and the testing of those theories for those involved. What Winslott states is required is a double loop reflective process, one which reflects back to the very question being asked and forces the question to be asked, "is this solving the real issue at hand?" thus making clear if not already what the actual goal at hand is, challenging the underlying assumptions that support the stated goals of the project.
I feel this is particularly relevant for me and my thought process involving Mikes bikes, previously my thought track was on a single loop I had set out superficial factors in which I was focused on and adjusted as I tried to involve myself in the later stages of the critical learning theory set out by Kolb. My active experimenting with the variables in the finance side of the firm were not assisting our firm in any way. In actual fact what I had done was to create a flawed experiment which no amount of testing was going to provide value for. In the course of this week upon taking in the theory was to formulate a new goal which would actually provide value for our firm and use the knowledge in how the manipulation of those variables would affect the end result we might benefit. It also had the bonus of identifying the opportunities which we could adjust our strategy so that we could put to use our previously gained knowledge through the critical thought process and experimentation which would improve our ailing firms performance.
Through reflecting on the reflective process itself we have managed to bring back our firms performance from a woeful position and to gain some benefit from engaging in the higher levels of Blooms taxonomy in a way that actually benefited the firms position and will hopefully help to formulate decisions fitting with our firms overreaching strategy.
Daudelin, M. W. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 36–48
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 8(3), 21–31
Synnott, M. (2013). Reflection and double loop learning: The case of HS2. Teaching Public Administration, 31(1), 124--134. doi:10.1177/0144739413479950.