"You only get to introduce systems thinking once in an organization
(innocculation phenomenon), so you have to choose the right track ... "
Stephen,
Your remark occurred near the end of a fairly helpful (to me) discussion
re: the division of the LO community into two camps--the stocks and
flows diagrammers vs. the causal loop diagrammers.
Setting aside for the moment the, IMHO, questionable assumptions about
organizational and individual human behaviour implicit in the phrase
"inoculation phenomenon," I would like to ask you to clarify what you
mean by "the right track"? I must say that I was pretty much in
agreement with your argument to this point. Unless I misunderstood your
intent, I thought you were saying that the "two camps" were both in
danger of missing the point--that is: these tools are intended to support
learning and insight into your systems. Therefore, it is not a question of
which tool is "right" and which is "wrong" but which tool will help us
accomplish our aim at this point in time, given their subtle differences.
This is how I interpreted your statement concerning being "squarely in
both camps."
Incidentally, I too was in Boston last week and noticed the apparent
division between SF'ers and CLD'ers and was somewhat mystified by
this phenomenon. To be fair, no one at the conference said out right that
one approach was sufficient without the other. Yet, why would anyone
want to discount any tool that could be potentially helpful? For example,
one never hears mechanics arguing that crescent wrenches are better
than ratchet wrenches, so don't bother buying a ratchet set. Likewise,
I've never heard a mechanic argue that a screwdriver is alone sufficient
for fixing any car problem. In the end, it all depends on what you're
trying to accomplish. (Despite what these remarks might lead one to
believe, I had a wonderful learning experience at the conference.)
Stephen, you went on to say that you preferred the SF approach for its
inherently more rigorous discipline, especially if your final intent is to
model the system. This is to me a compelling argument, and one that I
cannot take issue with. After all, you were basing your preference on
the "higher" purpose of learning; one tool in particular better helps you
learn than the other. This strikes me as an appropriately "open" stance
for learning. (I would also add, as one who is quite new to this
discipline, you provided me with some excellent "food for thought.")
However, it seems that you took the argument even further with your
remark re: "the right track." If, in your experience, you only get one
chance to introduce Systems Thinking into an organization, perhaps the
problem is not that the wrong track was taken but is more related to the
presence of learning disabilities in the organization. That is, the problem
is not that the wrong tool or approach was taken but that those involved
think there is "one right way." This strikes me as fundamentally
"anti-learning" and should be addressed before introducing any tools at
all. It seems to me that when we become concerned about finding "the
right way" we tend to get caught up in trivialities and organizational
backwaters. Far better to keep asking ourselves where we want to go
and use the tools that help us get there. Does this make sense? Have I
missed your point? Any thoughts?
--Bill Ayers, Human Resource Specialist The City of Winnipeg Winnipeg, MB, Canada wayers@city.winnipeg.mb.ca
"Standard disclaimers apply"
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>