Interdependent Systems & Resp LO7674
Wed, 29 May 1996 15:40:04 -0400

In LO7585 Bill Hobler writes:

>I am afraid that with work flow software and the emerging process control
>software that can route less structured intellectual work to a desktop we
>are separating people rather than making teams. Consider the computer
>programmer in a large organization. S(he) just finishes testing a module
>and sends it on. The process control software notes that (s)he is
>finished immediately e-mails another program specification and the
>expected completion date and time. My gosh s(he) didn't even get to stand
>up or look away from the computer.

Something I have been pondering for awhile came back to me again while
reading Bill's post. I decided to make a separate thread, not knowing if
it really should continue under "Organization of a LO".

The question: Do interdependent systems necessarily get an interdependent

My current thought is as follows:

A machine with gears, levers, etc, is a system of components working
together for a purpose (aim). Therefore, the components participate in an
interdependent system. If one part fails, the system will likely not

On the other hand, if we design a system intended to drive interdependency
among humans within an organization, it will not necessarily lead to an
interdependent response.

If we have developed a system for people to work in, intended to drive
interdependency, is there a way to measure the level of actual
interdependence taking place? Could this be beneficial in determining
just how effective the system really is?

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

"Progress always involves risk; you can't steal second base and keep your
foot on first." - Frederick Wilcox -

Diane Korzeniewski


Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <> -or- <>