Nickols@aol.com picks up the thread on the distinction between the
system and the people with:
>...snip>
>So, just as to focus only on "the system" is inappropriate and
>unproductive, a focus on people to the exclusion of all other factors is
>inappropriate and unproductive too. (And no, Robert, I'm not saying you
>said people should be the exclusive focus -- I'm simply pointing out that
>they shouldn't be.)
>
>To focus on the system, then, as Deming and others have advocated, is not
>to exclude people but is simply to recognize that, chances are,
>difficulties in performance will be traced not to people but to the roles,
>relationships, responsibilities, tasks, duties, procedures, schedules,
>interactions, machines, methods, materials and all the other arrangements
>in which people are caught up as a result of being "parts" in a system or
>organization (usually of someone else's design).
I am please that Fred gave us this clarification. I believe that some of
the confusion arises in people narrowly defining the system to be
distinct from the people. I have the belief that both Deming and Senge
mean that the system INCLUDES the people. So to focus on the people is
subdividing the focus.
Most "systems" in the dictionary sense are inadequate because they do not
cover the exceptions. In other words, they deal with the 20% of the world
that generates 80% of the activity. The people working in the system fill
the gaps by handling the other 20%. Large corporations try to define
everything in big standards and procedures manuals, yet most people never
read them and use their judgement instead. Just like most people do not
read instruction manuals for: software, VCRs, cars, telephones...
So we can simplify this discussion by using a broader mental model of a
company as the intersection of different and complementary domains
that cover people, procedures and processes. culture, organization and
purpose, market and competition, customers and suppliers, regulation
and politics, etc.
It is this mapping that presents the insights and the mandate for change
(if any). When we have a consensus on the current state, there will be
mismatches and these need to be the focus of early change activity.
More important, we can establish a consensus for the future direction of
each domain and anticipate where the mismatches will get bigger and this
will help prioritize our activites and urgency for change.
To me, the ideal outcome of LO would be an improved set of methods for
making these assessments and gaining consensus.
Then Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net> expands on the concept in
Subject: Deming and Senge Comparison LO9218
>.... Traditional schooling, focusing attention as it does on isolated
>fragments of reality, does nothing to prepare students for this kind of
>thinking. The systems which are meaningfully integrated are sociocultural
>systems, and in our attempt to understand what's going on around us, we
>invariably fail to take into account the nesting of or the intersecting of
>the particular system we're interested in with all other relevant
>sociocultural systems--family, religious, ethnic, occupational, regional,
>social class, dominant culture, Western ...
Thanks, Marion. We even used the word "intersecting" independently. Your
view is broader than mine and makes the point well. In an earlier
conversation here, I used the Board selection process for CEO as an
example of another system totally external to the organization and its
culture as an example of an intersecting system with large impact.
Cheers ....Keith
(PS Another warm sunny day on the coast. The mountains are clear and the
sea is smooth and shiny, reflecting the blue sky and cirrus clouds...a day
full of hope for the future!)
--Keith Cowan <72212.51@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>