Thread by @PavelASamsonov

Feedback loops come in many flavors:

Single loop learning: are we doing things right?
Double loop learning: are we doing the right things?
Triple loop learning: are we determining "right" right?
Quadruple loop learning: are we learning right?

From tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.108…

Single-loop learning is very straightforward: you hit the problem with a stick, and if it isn't solved, you hit it harder, or in a different place, or with a bigger stick.

If the problem doesn't have a solution based on stick-hitting, single-loop learning will never fix it.

Double-loop learning is what we usually mean when we talk about the design process. Designers observe the problem, conceive of an intervention, and trial it. Based on the outcome, they update their model of the situation and change the nature of intervention.

Double-loop learning is limited by a fixed approach to the problem. The third loop asks the question: are we measuring success correctly? Is the vision that we are driving towards a desirable vision for us?

Triple-loop learning is often not very popular with your manager.

The fourth learning loop can be thought of as Learning Ops - it's the "learning how to learn" piece that examines the org's ability to learn continuously, frequently, and effectively. Quadruple-loop learning incorporates political contexts of the org in order to reduce obstacles.

One of the ways quadruple-loop learning accelerates the feedback loop is by examining provenance of knowledge and decisions: how we know, and why we decided. Rather than wait for individual mental models to stop "fighting the last war," it can quickly identify flaws in thinking.

One can imagine a fifth loop that tackles modes of knowledge: is our thinking entangled in a colonialist approach to knowing? Are the right people included not only as subjects of observations, but also as decision-makers? Are we causing negative externalities? For whom?