hello
I used to be involved with a group of computing and business process
Architects who would take on the analysis and (re)design of systems, and
the common approach was to use structured analysis (yourdon/demarco) and
Data modeling to get a handle on the current systems in place. My role
as technical support had me documenting these models in CASE tools and
using my art skills to build concept cartoons to get the language barrier
between the disciplines and departments out of the way.
My former group also had some individuals concerned about the "holes" in
the way we did our work, and ambiguity that was nearly un-avoidable and
were always experimenting with the techniques and specificity available
in system models, even to the point of inventing some new approaches to
modeling (The BERM, jorgenson/walter- 1992-94) and publishing technical
position papers and reports to the world at large.
In all this I observed that there is an inclination toward
"superficialness" even in all this energy-partly because of what Julie
Wrote about....
-----clip------
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Julie Beedon wrote:
> Replying to LO7941 --
> Which left me with something of a challenging dilemma.... As
> someone who came into learning organisations and OD through the
> Deming and Quality route and as someone who has valued process
> improvement over the years I could relate to what he says. Yet
> there is something I have been wrestling with over the last few
> months and I am not even sure if I can articulate it now.
----clip---->
I wonder if we are depending too much on "Rational" information, and not
also considering the intuitive components when we try to perform process
improvements? I find that when over riding concepts are fully understood
and adhered to that pertain to the design of a system (example might be
the Macintosh OS) then some pretty amazing things can happen and
improvements really are improvements and not just a twiddle that kept
some analysts busy for a while.
So many of our process improvements ignore the people issues, or look at
the human component as just another impersonal widget belonging to the
system (rather than the other way around-the system belonging to the people).
I'm wondering if hinging design or process improvement decisions might
work better if over riding (and shared) values were the basis of the
decision? Values about people, and human interaction, fareness and all
seem to be some of the things that are not confined to one corner or
other of a systems view, but our tendency to think of values as just
another item to check off on our process improvement list-and not think
deeply about the implications of one twiddle or another that just
reshuffles system components and activities.
----clip from julie's post----
> I can see the value of a focus on processes and the need to
> understand the extent to which the processes we choose affect the
> outcome. Then I worry about a focus on processes which takes the
> whole system and breaks it down into processes - for we could
> improve one and negatively impact the whole. So if we set up
> quality or other systems to focus on processes we could be setting
> ourselves up to be non-systemic.
-----and-----
> I have already said in a previous posting that I think we need
> underlying principles to inform our work - perhaps these are
> values (somehow they seem different to me - but that is another
> posting - anyone want to try the difference between a principle
> and a value??)
I think Julie might be right. My observations however are that people
look at values as kind of a "pie in the sky idea" and don't directly
apply them to the task at hand as readily as they(we) might (you know,
where the rubber meets the road).
------clip------
> I always find a discussion of outcomes essential when considering
> process design.....
The issues I see with a focus on process without consideration of
purpose (outcomes) is that you can lose the fit of the process into
the the whole.........
> I think we need system of things happening
>
> * people being clear about the purpose of their roles/jobs/processes
> and how it fits into the whole and the purpose of the whole
> * an ongoing open-ness to and interaction with the environment
> (intrnal and external)
> * a constant questioning and reflecting on our processes, actions
> and purposes
> * an alignment of systems and processes to fit our purposes (NB how
> often do you see a mission which talks about valuing cooperation
> with internal systems which are set up to promote competition)
> and focussing on any one of those would not get it
>
> Julie Beedon
>
----clip----
And to this I might add ->Follow through. Don't talk without the Walk.
later...
Michael Erickson
sysengr@atc.boeing.com
--Michael Erickson <sysengr@atc.boeing.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>