RE: Thinking outside the box in the UK

[vic@vicf.com]

> If we want to change the outcomes, we need to reframe the thinking
> that we use to understand what is going on.

How do you do that?

> This will only come about
> when we appreciate that organisations are constructed of complex
> inter-relationships and that it is these connections are where we need to
> work.

Very well put.

But how do you get from here to there ?

> If we were dealing
> with a physical machine then demanding more from the end or output of
> such a system would cause the cogs and gears to spin faster
> because they are
> physically connected.

Even with a machine you cannot get "more" by just informing the machine of
the output target. You have to do something about the inputs. Even the
turning or a dial is an input. You also have to take account of the
machine's design and capability.

I'm now going to turn devil's advocate.

I have some difficulties with the application of systems thinking. The two
main ones are :

Resources are not limitless, therefore the inputs run out.

All systems operate within larger systems which have a habit of determining
their fate no matter how wonderful the system is within its boundaries.

If we take an issue like September 11th. A large number of businesses
suddenly found themselves without customers. Without massive cost cuts
smaller businesses could not, and many did not survive. Now one may well
complain about the short-termism of the banking system. One may say "this
was a special cause" and so on. But the way for such businesses to survive
if they could was in fact not to be systems thinkers, but to sub-optimise.
i.e. place their own interests before that of the whole. In other words to
compete for scarce business.

The problem for people in organisations is that systems thinking seems to
demand infinite altruism.

The intrinsic contradictions within systems seem to be these:

In order for a system to exist it must have a boundary. But this boundary is
not real - it is put there in order to help us to think about the system.
The system is inextricably bound up with the dynamics of the world outside
of itself. So are those within the boundary misled if they believe in it and
direct their efforts towards its survival ?

Sub-optimisation seems inevitable. Because at some level there is a
boundary. When we place the boundary at too low a level within an
organisation and direct people's efforts towards the sub-system's survival,
we call this sub-optimisation. Why is it then that when we place the
boundary at the level of the organisation, company or whatever, this is not
regarded as sub optimisation?

Nature is a great systems thinker. But if we take nature as our model,
survival is not a requirement of systems within nature - ecology demands
that the lion consume the antelope; the fish consume the plankton. So is it
not the case that systems thinking may mislead people and create false
expectations?

Best Wishes
Vic Forte
vic@vicf.com