Deming v. Hayek, white space, and the definition of a system

["Bawn, Loren" <LBAWN@dhs.state.ia.us>]

Carlos Mendez writes:
<Begin quote>The "taxis" have an aim, but "cosmos" don't, they just come to
exist. It is the norms through which the taxis interact that generate a
particular cosmos. Change the norms of interaction, and you obtain a
different cosmos. Hayek calls these norms "abstract norms" which have the
characteristic of guiding action, but do not favor or disfavor the
achievement of any individual aim. The interesting thing of all this comes
when Hayek tells us that a particular set of "abstract norms" will generate
a certain use of the resources in that cosmos.
<snip>
Could it be possible to have a very efficient company if we define abstract
norms of interaction between the components instead of telling in detail
everybody what to do and the relationship to the aim? <end quote>

Paul Preuss writes:
<Begin quote>Ackoff said - "A System is not the sum of its parts but rather
the product of its interactions."   It was as if a bomb (or lightbulb) went
off in my head.  I had spent years focusing on parts of the system - not the
white space between the parts - the linkages.
<snip>
The system is a whole which can not be divided into independent parts. When
a system is taken apart it loses its essential properties.
<end quote>

Gordon Hall writes:
<Begin quote>Within an organisation we have a wish to flowmap and document
all our procedures and systems - and then ensure compliance.
Here in Aberdeen we had an excellent presentation from Bill Rattray of
Aberdeen College where they had done just that - all procedures were
documented and there was a well designed improvement system in place. I was
impressed but my colleagues where uncomfortable with its apparent rigidity.
(Aberdeen College are at the top of the league tables for FE colleges in the
UK)<end quote>


Some time back there was a discussion regarding complexity theory that
posited that all complex systems contain both a "legitimate" system (all of
the diagrams and the like produced by management which purportedly convey
how the system was designed to work) and a "shadow" system (how things
really work).  The idea was that as soon as a designed system is put into
place, people begin to find ways to make it better suit their needs, and
better fulfill what they perceive to be the aim.  This continues until
either the legitimate system is realigned with the shadow system (in which
case the process begins anew) or until entropy breaks down the system.  It
occurs to me that the shadow system is a natural product of the white space
(nature abhorring a vacuum and all). 

In my experience, the white space has always been where the action is.  I
have had the largest impact by acting upon the boundaries between components
of a system, and have generally been able to do so (in part) by reinforcing
the system aim.  (I often find the component aims to be at odds with the
system aim, and can generally get agreement that the system aim needs to
take precedence, but that's beside the point).  

Carlos' post suggested to me the possibility that if we could unearth the
abstract norms of interaction, or "unwritten rules" that define the
component boundaries (or white spaces), we could go a long way toward
determining how people have "naturally" begun to optimize the system (if in
fact they are trying to make the system work and not simply trying to
survive in a grossly dysfunctional system).  Would this be an effective way
of returning the system's wisdom to itself?  How would one go about
documenting these abstract norms of interaction?  Would this, paired with
the flowmaps and documentation of the "black space," give us a full picture
of the system in question?


Keep the Faith,
Loren Bawn
Executive Officer for Community Systems
Iowa Department of Human Services