JC Howell asked some interesting questions.
>Interesting challenge. Please expand my understanding of this. If we
>view the system as a whole and then attempt change, do we not have to
>address the component pieces and the way each relates to the whole? Isn't
>this a move back toward a reductionist approach?
I think it is adopting the "reductionist approach" but that IMO requires
some extension. First I fear I am in the need of some education
concerning ways of seeing whole systems clearly enough to effect positive
change with minimum risk of failure. Let me lay out my thinking.
I think it is fact that:
1. Individuals, societies and whole civilizations have for many centuries
carefully examined the details of systems in an effort to understand how
to change the system's behavior.
2. Many of the most important system behaviors emerge from, can be
explained by, and can be altered by altering their micro structures. The
same detailed structures studied for years.
For instance water is a liquid, solid, or gaseous under different
conditions. These are macro behaviors that are easily explained from the
micro structure of water's molecules. Sublimation is a predictable
behavior when the micro structure is well understood.
3. Even in chaos theory and in quantum mechanics the possible behaviors
of systems are circumscribed. These possible behaviors are predictable,
with associated probabilities, from knowledge of the micro structure of
the systems.
I believe (my assumption) that deep knowledge of systems, knowledge so
profound that allows people to be intuitive and creative in building
changes that influence desired outcomes is comprehensive knowledge of the
micro structure and the relationships among the micro structures.
I believe that such deep knowledge is present only in those people who
have lived and worked with the system for a long time (at least a year for
simple systems.)
I reason that any attempt to bring about positive change requires the
"scientific" approach of discovering the micro structure of systems and
from them synthesizing the macro behaviors. From this synthesis positive
change is built.
Please understand that I believe that every business process (system)
exhibits some rather common behaviors in the micro and macro levels.
While these may be assumed it is always prudent to test these assumptions
when dealing with any system.
>From this I conclude that;
1. It is necessary to discover and understand the micro level features of
systems and seek the resulting macro behavior.
2. Omitting the process of synthesizing macro behaviors from knowledge of
micro features is ignoring lessons learned centuries ago. The temptation
is to correct micro feature errors and not invest in synthesis. This is
short sighted.
Where have I missed the point?
--bhobler@worldnet.att.net Bill Hobler
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>